Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"The account spreads false claims and hateful commentary"

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:

• Libs of TikTok spreads false claims - not just a handful of times, but on a regular basis.
• Libs of TikTok engages in hateful commentary - again, on a regular basis.
• These mostly have to do with transgender medical care on children, but also cover other subjects.

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)

I hold a lot of contempt for the NYT (wouldn't publish the pentagon papers, promoted Iraq war, etc.) but comparing their falsehoods to LoTT is laughable. The NYT has been one of the most influential publications in the world for over a hundred years. Without microfiche or hard drives, it would take up a whole library to hold everything they've published. LoTT is a tiktok account that's a few years old. Most of the coverage of LoTT is regarding the false and misleading information they post, which all of the posted sources are pretty clear on. Even the conservative Boston Herald quotes experts calling out LoTT's misinformation (tho they wouldn't use the editorial voice). Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think most of the coverage of LoTT has been about false information, but even if that were true, it wouldn't be the sort of evidence we could use in this article - it's original research. What are the actual references saying that LoTT 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)

The Slate citation describes Raichik and her antics as hateful, and that is sufficient. This is yet another "I was reverted, so here comes a wall of text" section. OP has done this over for category after category, line after line, and the discussion invariably winds down to a lack of consensus for their point-of-view. As some point, this becomes disruptive. Zaathras (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I was never reverted on this topic, but nice try. I'm curious, though, if others think that a single Slate article - which doesn't actually say that Libs of TikTok provides hateful commentary - is enough to say - in the article's second sentence! - that LoTT spreads hateful commentary. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

comment Looking at just the Korny edits since my last visit, I'd say it's already disruptive. There's clear consensus against Korny's whitewashing, it's firmly rooted in Wikipedia policy, and hopefully that's the end of it. Wes sideman (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

What whitewashing? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Every single edit you propose is to either remove information that could be perceived as negative, or to cast the subject in a more positive light, or both. I'm done with your nitpicking, time to WP:DROPTHESTICK; if you choose not to, good luck with the admins. Wes sideman (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can look through the page history themselves if they want to, say, compare the quality of our respective edits. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to say here? Looking through your edit history what was said is entirely true Googleguy007 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this revert you made of my edit illustrates the problem with this focus on "whitewashing". What reader, reading the text after your change, would not naturally assume that Libs of TikTok offhandedly called someone Satanic? So yes, that particular edit of mine made Libs of TikTok look better, but only because it removed extremely misleading text. That's not whitewashing. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be quite clear to any competent reader that she claimed that an individual inspired by satanism would be attending and did not, not that the individual was not inspired by satanism, and im not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the whitewashing allegations, just saying that i have been unable to find an edit that did not at least marginally make Chaya look better than before it was made. Googleguy007 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The question is whether "inspired by Satanism" is LoTT's view, or the drag queen's own self-description. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a non-question, nobody with a basic understanding of how words work would read "the individual was not invited to the brunch" as "the individual was not invited to brunch and also LoTT made up the claim that they were inspired by satanism".

The lack of a refutation of the claim serves as a de-facto affirmation of it, the fact that she lied about a satanist performing is notable enough that it should be included as long as the event is included, "the individual was not invited to the brunch but was inspired by satanism" places undue weight on her being inspired by satanism and insults the readers intelligence, "LoTT claimed that a drag queen who self describes as being inspired by satanism" is clunky and unnecessarily adds her claim, which was that a drag queen inspired by satanism would be attending.

The section is fine and does not need to be changed. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've adjusted the sentence to be "false and misleading claims", since the sources do not support a "hate speech" label especially given the BLP concerns and MOS:LABEL, which states that value-laden labels like that are 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)

The sources do support the original wording. I've added the Washington Post source, which is already cited elsewhere in the article, to the end of that sentence, as it also supports "hate speech" explicitly. Wes sideman (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That one still seems iffy for such a contentious label, but I'll leave it alone for now since the Washington Post source takes care of the immediate BLP violation. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Best infobox template for this page?

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)

None are perfect, imho a social media account template should be created, however given the current lack of one I would support Infobox person Googleguy007 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Count me as another reluctant vote for "person." As mentioned, there are no good choices here, but that one strikes me as least bad. That said, should consensus say otherwise, no worries. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I also support "person" in the absence of {{Infobox social media account}}. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there's no ideal infobox to use, but I think it's clear that "Infobox website" is the best choice - it's what other articles about Twitter accounts use, like NJGov and PeggyOlson, and it prevents awkward constructions like that Chaya Raichik is the "birth name" of Libs of TikTok. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You "think it's clear" because you were the one who replaced the infobox with "Infobox website", and that one doesn't include the "Movement:" parameter, which allowed you to quietly remove Far-right politics and anti-LGBT. I'm pointing all of these facts out because you omitted them from your comments in this discussion. Probably an honest oversight on your part. Wes sideman (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You already said the made-up thing about me down below - I don't know why you need to say it again here. See WP:PA, by the way. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Amusingly we have {{Infobox TikTok personality}}, {{Infobox YouTube personality}}, {{Infobox Instagram personality}}, but no {{Infobox Twitter personality}} or {{Infobox social media personality}}. Given the circumstances, {{Infobox person}} seems like the least bad fit here, as Chaya is the only person known to be running the account. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox :person, as this is just the twitter handle for a private individual. Not a business, not a media platform, nor a non-profit. Just a plain ol person behind the curtain. Zaathras (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That's some unusual logic. What if she hires a second person to help her run the account? Or what if she already has? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't generally deal in "what if's" around here ;) Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

For me, Korny, that wouldn't change anything. I suspect many of the great and good have people who help manage their social media presences. But I continue thinking it is more akin to a "person" than, say, NJGov, which represents an office, or PeggyOlson, which is an explicit exercise in writing from the perspective of a fictional character. There is no indication that LoTT is anything other than the personal views of Chaya Raichik. But as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:57, 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)

As Dumuzid notes right above you, there's already a reasonable chance that someone else has posted to the account. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The user's post you reference does not make any such claim. Do we have a WP:CIR issue here? Zaathras (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

So we can't use a person infobox if someone hires an assistant? Or because someone might theoretically hire an assistant? I don't think that's right. 🙢 Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Infobox person. Ultimately, this is an article about a social media account and many RS describe it as Libs of TikTok, not by Chaya's name. The way we have it now is adequate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Right now it's "Infobox organization" - is that what you mean? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

yes Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If someone were to show that Template:Infobox zinc isotopes presented the most relevant info with the most appropriate parameter labels, I'd support that. Readers do not see which infobox we're using, they just see the result. What better result would we get by switching away from the status quo? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Wes sideman (talk) 12:10, 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)

By "background information", you mean "stuff you made up about me"? I don't think switching to "Infobox website" requires any explanation, unlike your strange switch to "Infobox organization". And speaking of the listing of ideologies, that's quite an awkward shoehorning you made, putting the ideologies into the field called "Affiliations". It makes little sense, and I dare say not a single other page that includes that infobox uses "Affiliations" for that purpose. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Took bout 5 seconds to find this one. Wes sideman (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Great, you sort of found one. Not really, though, because those are all movements that the Heritage Foundation actually helped to shape in one way or another, as opposed to just political views. (Though some of those listings are still somewhat dubious.) But you won't find something like "center-right" in that field. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support whatever infobox retains political stances information It's very apparent that Wes is correct and Korny is suggesting this in order to remove the accurate information about the subject's political stances. I have no strong opinion on what infobox to use, since none fits social media well, but I specifically only support one that retains said information. Silverseren^C 06:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC: "Critics of Black Lives Matter" category

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus that any verifiable criticism of BLM by the subject (which some participants don't agree exists) was only in passing, and thus is not defining enough for categorization. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Should Category:Critics of Black Lives Matter be included in this article? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• No, don't think criticizing BLM is an initiative or purpose of the account.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• No As far as I'm aware, there aren't strong WP:RS for this particular category. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes: Contrary to the above comments, there actually are reliable sources that detail the account's opposition to BLM. It doesn't have to be a central tenet of the account to be included as a category. Wes sideman (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  It would be helpful if you provided them, per WP:BURDEN Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

They're already in the article. Wes sideman (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The term Black Lives Matter does not make one appearance in the prose of this article. Furthermore, not only is the BURDEN on you to provide sourcing in this discussion, but you need to establish that LoTT's opposition to BLM is enough to make it a defining characteristic. I'm trying to to give you the opportunity to present what guideline requires before I just !vote no. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC) I was mistaken by saying BLM is not mentioned in the article. It is once. I've addressed this below as well. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you searched for Black Lives Matter and didn't bother to look for "BLM" in the prose, perhaps you should reconsider taking part in this RfC. Wes sideman (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes if there are sources No if not, I believe that the account is anti-blm but would need to see citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googleguy007 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There are sources in the article. Wes sideman (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Probably not - There's not enough coverage describing BLM-specific comments. I see a couple mentions of comments that unfavorably reference BLM, but that's not sufficient. Following the sourcing, we could probably sustain inclusion of categories like "critics of history", "anti-anti-racists", "critics of reality", etc., but we don't have those categories. As an aside, "critics of..." always seems like it implies a little too much, well, "critique" for some of the people included. Something that boils down to angrily snickering while scrawling nonsense about someone on a bathroom wall isn't really "criticism". YMMV. Aside #2: We do have Category:Internet trolls, which appears supported by the sourcing. Tangential, I know. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per the sources already present. Zaathras (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• No - I'm not even sure if the claim is verifiable; I don't believe one source (the other sources above are Fox News and Twitter, neither are reliable) saying, in passing, that LoTT said BLM protests were worse than January 6 fully establishes them as a "critic" of BLM. Even if you do concede that it's verifiable you still would need to prove that is a defining characteristic of 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 consistently refer to or even hint at LoTT being a critic of BLM. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 23:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• No per the WP:CATDEF or WP:DEFINING excerpt mentioned above by User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers. One source, or even a few sources, is not enough. It needs to be common and consistent. It isn't. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• No Like the other editors who have mentioned WP:CATDEF this catagory shouldn't be included in this article. Nemov (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Based on the current text of the article, no. The only reference to Black Lives Matter in the article is the sentence 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)
• No. Proponents have not demonstrated the category is a defining characteristic, even if some reliable sources can be found to support the assertion. We don't categorize articles just because they tangentially or occasionally fit into a category. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak no. It's common, but not definitive enough. Plus, at least to me, categories are really only something that seems to be used by Wikipedia "power users" use, so as long as we're not categorizing Bay Area Rapid Transit into a Ron DeSantis category, I think that this categorization is fine either way. It personally baffles me sometimes that categories of all things become the subject of edit wars. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 09:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - the sources demonstrate this is a defining characteristic of this account's notability. It's one of the things they often do as an account, and one of the things that garners them lots and lots of news coverage. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• No - No solid WP:RS for this. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No based on currently presented sources. Categories aren't meant to list every characteristic of a person, just the most salient ones, and this is something that many editors consistently fail to understand when it comes to controversial BLPs. It only serves to dilute our categories and make them less useful for readers and researchers. When people go to Category:Critics of Black Lives Matter, they want to see the primary anti-BLM activists; not a huge list of all people that ever made a throwaway comment against BLM. Frankly, the category should be renamed Category:Anti Black Lives Matter activists or similar, to make it clear that the category should focus on notable activists, not throwaway comments. DFlhb (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No -- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unless there are multiple RS that explore this subject matter in depth we simply ought not categorize it. A passing mention from sources does not meet this standard. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

BLM vs. Black Lives Matter: There have been multiple editors now who have claimed that there's no appearance of "black Lives Matter" in one place or another. For everyone reading: BLM is the same thing as Black Lives Matter. There are multiple references that only use BLM. The prose of the article uses BLM. Please search for both if you're going to search text. Wes sideman (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The central issue here is WP:CATDEF and there just isn't a compelling argument to categorize this article as Category:Critics of Black Lives Matter. Also, your comment above to another editor that they "should reconsider taking part in this RfC was rude. Nemov (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

They have the opinion that the category doesn't apply, and doubled down on it by making a completely false statement. Even assuming that was accidental, I wasn't being rude. I was stating that if an editor makes 100% inaccurate assessments like that in the discussion, whether on purpose or through blissful ignorance, I don't think they should be considered a holder of a credible opinion. I just said it tersely. Wes sideman (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I made a mistake and missed the one sentence that even mentions Black Lives Matter in the article. That doesn't give you reason to attempt to completely discredit me. Also, I didn't double down on it. I reviewed all the relevant RS, and non-RS, that is in the article and in above discussions to reach the conclusion that LoTT should be not be categorized as a Critic of Black Lives Matter. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 18:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

So the only editors allowed to comment are ones that are mistake free and agree with Wes sideman? This is your idea of a "credible opinion?" That's certainly a POV, but not really a persuading argument. Nemov (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've requested for this to be closed at WP:Close requests. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

• I added a thread at BLPN to discuss the issue of WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:QUO when it comes to the current inclusion of this category before this RfC has ended. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the category in response to the BLPN post. As this is a BLP article, it's advisable for disputed content to be removed while it is under discussion. I suggest that editors allow the RfC come to a conclusion and then restore if applicable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I have restored it, it can await the RfC outcome. Being called "a critic" is not libelous, slanderous, or even really all that sensational. Take it down a notch. Zaathras (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It is contentious enough to have a RFC on this. Do you see a consensus there? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

How does that work within the WP:BLPRESTORE guidelines? Nemov (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

After seeing the thread at BLPN and reviewing this RfC, I can confirm that per WP:BLPRESTORE the content must remain excluded unless and until there is a consensus to include it (which doesn't seem to exist currently in the above RfC). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The content was already in. This was supposed to be a discussion on removal, but, people will twist things to suit their needs, it seems. Zaathras (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Zaathras you are right when it comes to most articles on this site, but specifically not when WP:BLP comes into play. In such instances, controversial info about living persons, then removal is the default. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BLPRESTORE is very clear on what the procedure is for circumstances like this one. 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)

Yes, but, this seems to be the why the quite apt WP:CRYBLP (and yes I am aware of its only-an-essay status) was penned. The mere invocation of it should not give a user carte blanche to remove content, there has to be the ability to protest or challenge its invocation. Again, all we're saying here is "this person is critical of X". That's not contentious enough to warrant "remove it while we discuss it". Zaathras (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You might want to reread that essay, I'm not sure it says what you think it does. Two established editors (and now an uninvolved administrator) have made good faith assertions that BLP applies to this issue and the normal process should be followed. And as you noted, you aren't allowed to just drop an essay into the discussion and use it to overrule one of our most important policies based on your own opinion (which is addressed in WP:CRYCRYBLP). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Calm down, bud. I'm not actually going to to try to revert the contested material now, that ship has already sailed in the face of your united opposition. I am simply saying that that you're wrong in your misapplied BLP. And I stand by that assessment, and my interpretation of the essay. Zaathras (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

In the future if you're going to comment on BLP matters your general attitude to other editors needs to improve. This particular comment is disrespectful. The material was contested before you arrived (hence the RfC). That's why your argument fails to convince others on WP:BLPRESTORE. You're free to argue, but do so respectfully. Nemov (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It isn't your place to lecture other users, so, kindly step off. I have stated why I feel the user above is wrong, and I will continue to stand by that, and continue to state that when questioned. So, unless a thoughtcrime became Wikipedia policy overnight, you have no leg to stand on with these threats. Zaathras (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No but if you do the same thing in the future even in other articles, don't be surprised if you receive a BLP topic ban. You can think whatever you want. You have to obey our fundamental policies while editing. Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I have done just that. This is a disagreement in a discussion on a talk page. Apples and oranges. Zaathras (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Pejorative law nicknames

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)

Dismissing it as just "an activist's nickname" is disingenuous, as it has become a well-known and widely-covered name for the bill. So much so that "Don't Say Gay" appears prominently as a bolded alternate name right in the very first line of the article link provided. Rather than your invented analogy, a better one would be to the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare". Zaathras (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the applicability and the conclusion of your hypothetical, your assertion about how Wikipedia should handle describing efforts by activists, and your characterization that a brief explanatory note on the bill is off-topic for this article. The note only serves to help our readers, given how common "Don't Say Gay" is as a name for the bill. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Regardless of my main point, you also reverted my removal of Walker's name for consistency. I don't really care whether the name in included, but for consistency, it should be used throughout the paragraph or not at all. As it is, it isn't obvious who Walker is when that name is referred to. Daask (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I noticed your Walker fix and thought I'd successfully kept that. Now re-fixed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It is only common with a segment of the society that is very active in politics on the left. I agree with Daask (talk · contribs), using framing that isn't the official name only serves to malign, not help the reader. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at my comments afresh, I think I unnecessarily introduced an overly high-intensity emotionally-laden analogy. I regret my chosen analogy, and wish I had found a real-world one, but stand by my point that the nickname is non-neutral POV-pushing. Daask (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I just did a little bit of google searching and im seeing results from NBC, TIME, CBS, CNBC, WaPo, The Guardian, PBS, ABC, Reuters, The Associated Press, The New York Times, and a plethora of smaller newshouses using/mentioning "dont say gay" to identify the bill. I think thats ample evidence that it is commonly used. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Googleguy007: My point is that it doesn't matter that it's commonly used. It's totally appropriate for major news sources to report on the ways that activist groups characterize the bill. They're reporting on the bill and the many ways that supporters and detractors describe it. The same subjects are very on-topic and appropriate in the Parental Rights in Education bill article. However, my contention is that it's a WP:NPOV problem and off-topic in other articles, such as this one, to describe how activists characterize the bill or the nicknames they use for it in their efforts to frame the debate and sway public opinion. Daask (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, NPOV means we follow the sources and all significant views presented therein. We can debate what the sources tend to call the bill, but if they indeed use the nickname a great deal, then it is possible to use it while following NPOV. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Using slang or framing does not provide encyclopedic value. There is a name of a bill, and there is a slang name. I do not believe the slang and perjorative framing has any place in an encyclopedia. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That's an argument you should take up with the reliable sources, I guess. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: creator of Florida Parental Rights in Education Act) I think that characterizing the legislation as commonly known as the Don't Say Gay bill/act/law is completely accurate. It's our role to represent what people are saying, not judge what they're saying. I think WP:NOTCENSORED would also come into play here, as if material our due weight policies and is phrased in a way which avoids violating WP:FRINGE (which the nickname clearly does based on the unanimity of the nickname among opponents with the only major deviation being Don't Say Gay or Trans Act, and even that still contains "Don't Say Gay"), it should be included. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Since the law is commonly known by the nickname (in my experience, I heard "Don't Say Gay act" long before "Florida Parental Rights in Education Act"), I support its inclusion in the article. However, I do believe that it should be mentioned as more "commonly known as".

AEagleLionThing (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this approach as well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't support it. Its only commonly known as that only in the left wing media. It's perjorative framing and does not have any encyclopedic value. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You've said the same thing 3 times in this discussion. Zaathras (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Include "Don't Say Gay bill". Saying the bill is "only commonly known as that only in the left wing media" is laughable and not supported by any evidence. In fact, the evidence to the contrary is all over the place. Wes sideman (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

comment The term "Don't Say Gay" is in the hatnote of the actual Wikipedia article. It's in the source cited at the end of the sentence in this article. It's by far the most common name that the bill is known by. The argument against including this term is ridiculous on its face. Wes sideman (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Reception section

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)

I trimmed down the opinion pieces from non-subject matter experts, if a secondary source talks about their view thats fine but on their own I'm not seeing due weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Minorly major edits

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.

• The most substantive edit I made was getting rid of the "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.
• Recurring theme: I tried to use Raichik as the subject of a sentence in a few more sentences, both because personifying the account reads a bit awkwardly (at least to my barely literate self) and because I think centering the account sometimes led to unnecessary passive voice. (I'm not a passive-voice stickler, but I think "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.
• Deleted the "they were rubber bullets" quotation. I was thrown by that until I read the WaPo story—it was confusing to me because I couldn't understand who/where "they" was coming from. As WaPo explained, she was providing a play by play (and if you click on the tweet, you see that she's responding to Mitch McConnell's claim that he "heard shots". I'll be honest, do I think that a January 6 poster was super critical of the capitol police? Absolutely. But I'm not sure that tweet is an example of her criticizing them. And adding all that context just adds a lot of extra words to a not-very-interesting quotation.
• Changed this line: "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."
• Deleted the @newyorkisshitty reference. All it said was, "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.
• Rearranged the Rogan sentence. That was such a tease! The setup: "Rogan promoted her, leading to a large increase in followers. Prior to that promotion, she had 65,000 followers." .... AND THEN IT NEVER SAID HOW MANY FOLLOWERS SHE HAD AFTER THE PROMOTION. Seems like it makes more sense for that section to lead with the pre-Rogan follow numbers, then talk about all the publicity she got.
• took out the "endeavored to stay anonymous sentence by appearing on media anonymously" sentence. In the very previous passage, the article said that she would appear on media anonymously. This was really just repetition.
• Got rid of the FEC records on Raichik's donations. What did they add? Also, awkwardly placed. Were they a means by which she was identified? If no, why are they in the "Identity revealed" section?
• I ended up rearranging the identity revealed section quite a bit. I was just trying to make it flow a little better. The edit summaries will look crazy, but I think if you read what's there now and compare to what's there before, you'll find that it's generally a slight improvement.
• Also, I think there's a slight over quoting problem in the article, so I tried to address that.

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)

All of these changes seem good imho, keep up the great work. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Restructure

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)

All in all im fine with the changes you made. I would support reducing the hospital section of redundancy while being careful not to remove relevant information Googleguy007 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Noted!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Took my first shot at combining the hospital coverage. There were ... a lot of commonalities, especially in the BCH and CNH cases, so I focused on combining those. We also had a lot of quotations of people reacting to either Libs of TikTok content or the threats—in the main paragraphs, in the sub-section on "reactions" to the hospital tweets, and in the main reaction section. I think it was a case of over quoting—did we need so many examples of officials denouncing threats of violence? So I trimmed that quite a bit.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:23, 5 May 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)

Hello! So I realize a lot of the editors I pinged haven't been on this page for a while, and it's now been four days without any input. Given Wikipedia:Silence and consensus (and, relatedly, WP:DRNC (essay)), I'm going to re-add my version of the hospital section.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

...your ping didn't work lettherebedarklight晚安 08:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What? Are you saying there was an error in Wikimedia software or I coded that wrong?--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

you coded it wrong somehow lettherebedarklight晚安 00:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Well "somehow" isn't too helpful, but either way sorry you didn't get the ping!--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Undue Weight?

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)

It seems that the undue weight tag was placed due to the fact that most of the positive reception is generally simple endorsements from political pundits while the negative reception section seems to have more in-depth criticisms from more experienced/qualified sources. For example, I would argue the most credible part of the negative section is either the five relatively in-depth sentences from harvards research director of media and public policy or the criticism from GLAAD, and the most credible part of the positive section is either the sentence from donald trump junior or the praise from tucker carlson, both of whom are much more explicitly and vocally political than GLAAD or the Harvard professor. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

... Not sure I would describe GLAAD (or almost any NGO involved in policy) as less political than any other, but I guess the question is ... do we have a source with a professor praising Libs of TikTok? (I have to say, given that this is ... at bottom ... a Twitter account, I sort-of expect that in-depth critique is going to be a lot more common than in-depth praise.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that in depth critique is inherently going to be more common than in-depth praise when refering to a twitter account, but even if that explains the discrepency it doesnt exclude it from UNDUE. Honestly I dont think theres a very good solution to this, because there isnt enough in depth praise to bring the sections into parity, it would be an NPOV vio to remove the positive reactions section or tone down the negative reactions section, and (imo) it does constitute UNDUE so (at least theoretically the notice should be there, however the notice would come of as weird for an average reader, as it would appear that the UNDUE label is being applied due to the fact that there is any positive reception at all. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

... I may have confused myself. Could we take a step back?

When I first saw the tag, I had assumed it was there because some user thought the positive section was too small compared to the negative section. But when I went into the edit history, I found the user who added it said they were doing so because the section felt like "false balance" (aka bothesideism), and their immediately preceding edit had actually removed content from the positive reception section. [1]

Now, when I saw your reaction, probably because I had that user's argument in mind, I thought you were making a similar argument. But now I don't think so. If I'm now right, you must think I'm an illiterate idiot, because, in that light, my first response to you made no damn sense. Now it seems to me that you're saying that the sizes of the sections are what renders it undue. But I'm not sure. If (and I haven't looked into this yet) substantially more negative critiques have been published, then it makes sense that the negative-reception section would be longer. Due weight doesn't require strict balance: we don't need to spend the same amount of text, say, discussing the minority of people who published praise of the movie Music as we do discussing the vast majority who hated that movie. Either way, if that is the alleged UNDUE issue, then the tag is misplaced—it should go right under the Reception section.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

BCH

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)

Second update—pursuant to the discussion in the above section, I've combined the great majority of the hospital content. Given the commonalities between the events, I think this boils down to choosing summary style over a detailed explanation of each incident (including, especially n the BCH case, lots of quotations of reactions—both in the main section and in the (former) sub-section "reactions".--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Teachers section

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 think this article is overly long in general and should be updated to really focus on what is notable. It doesn't need to cover every social media post ever made - what are people going to remember 100 years from now? What are the highlights? I think that if you want to put the work in to update that one section, and give people a chance to respond, that is the best way to tackle a contentious article. Don't make sweeping changes at once, make some improvements, and come back later after people have had a chance to review the changes. I know it's been a while since you posted this, but if you're still willing, I'd say - go for it. Just really focus on a consensus - not just of the users here - but a consensus of the articles themselves: what's the over arching themes? Denaar (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I unfortunately had real life obligations come up ... I reworked the Account History, Drag-show-related content and Gender-affirming-care-related sections ... But I bailed on the remainder.

I don't think the article length is as big of an issue now—certainly "what are people going to remember 100 years from now" is wayyyy too stringent of a standard. But if you want to take a stab, obviously feel free.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:24, 28 June 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)

Libs of TikTok on the news again due to bomb threats against schools

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)

And I thought everyone had moved over to Gays Against Groomers Dronebogus (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Some local coverage of the incident, including confirmation from the school district that the post the teacher made, which prompted the far-right threats, didn't violate school policy, and that the video Chaya Raichik went on to post was edited: https://www.fox23.com/news/local/bomb-threat-investigation-at-union-elementary-school-due-to-altered-tiktok-post/article_a528c0f4-40e7-11ee-9f54-9ba3a7c2d29d.html Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

More bomb threats linked to LOTT, this time in California: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/30/california-elementary-school-bomb-threat-libs-tiktok-extremist Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I added a new subsection about this the other day; I feel that this is prevalent enough to warrant one. Let me know what you think. B3251 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That was a good call. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

White House directly addresses LOTT harassment of gay government officials

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)

Better link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/08/tyler-cherry-interior-lbgtq-raichik/ Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTATIONS template at top

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)

Detail on how Libs of TikTok were outed

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)

Thanks, I added some extra detail to the article. That article conforms with what the WaPo article and other sources say about how Raichik's identity was revealed. Endwise (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Another Source

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":

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/libs-tiktok-x-chaya-raichik-bomb-threat-twitter-of-libsoftiktok-rcna102784

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Specificity in lead

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)

Seth Dillon Support

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024

Link the name Chaya Raichik to the Chaya Raichik biography page. Purpleplatypusbear (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Chaya Raichik doesn't have her own biography, just a redirect to this article. NotAGenious (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2024

"revealed in April 2022 by, separately," should be changed to "separately by" because it is confusing to read. 172.99.147.181 (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Content

Recent events, specifically on February 7th, have brought attention to bomb threats. However, there have been additional incidents, primarily targeting Planet Fitness—linked to Libs of TikTok—across 38 locations. These threats are related to the gym chain’s locker-room policies for transgender individuals, and now the FBI is actively involved.--Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Vague

The statement about individuals linking her to a person seen to be involved with the Jan 6 attack is vague and awkwardly placed. Although it wouldn't surprise anyone concerned if it were true, it's just speculation. Mind that I am NOT point to this in an effort to defend someone like CR or LOTT. Fuck noooo. 2A00:23C4:3E44:2C01:F922:E57E:7E65:5835 (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Grammatical error in paragraph 2

"...several of which having received bomb threats after being featured on a post."

Should be "have received bomb threats."

I can't change it myself as the article is understandably locked for editing. Darth Watto (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you; this was a bit clumsy. Instead of changing the verb, however, I removed "having" altogether. I think that works, but do let me know if you disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)