Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:41, 15 September 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libs of TikTok article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Shouldn't Misplaced Pages remove the identity of the account manager? A1: Community consensus is that the identity of the account manager should remain up. Q2: Didn't a Washington Post journalist doxx the account manager? A2: Reliable sources dispute this characterization and note that The Washington Post journalist only further publicized the identity of the account manager. Q3: Why is the account described as reposting content in a derogatory manner? A3: Reliable sources agree that the account editorializes the content it posts, specifically in a derogatory manner. Q4: The tweets about gender affirming care at hospitals weren't false, and I can prove it! A4: The Washington Post, USA Today, NPR, and PolitiFact, and other publications have rejected the tweets and claims by Libs of TikTok as false. Now-changed descriptions on hospital websites have been discredited by publications and hospitals as erroneous compared to actual hospital policy. Q5: This account isn't far-right and is actually only anti-grooming/anti-trans/right-wing/etc. A5: Right-wing and anti-trans does not preclude far-right. Sourcing from the Washington Post, NBC, USA Today, and Vice have all used far-right to directly describe the account, while other sources state the account retweets far-right content or directly enables far-right actions. See also discussions:

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

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

Summary of critique of mention of religion

Right now the article reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For months, Raichik backed off the “groomer” discourse while still consistently posting videos mocking trans people. But in November 2021, she started up again. In a since-deleted post, Raichik’s account wrote this about a prominent LGBTQ youth suicide-prevention group: “The Trevor Project is a grooming organization.” It was around this time that her account also started using what has become a popular online insult: “Ok groomer.”

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

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

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

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

Derogatory: showing strong disapproval and not showing respect

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

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

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

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

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

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

broad definition of "transphobic" such as "anyone who thinks puberty blockers should not be given to children"That is a massive straw man argument. In this case, we are talking about someone who describes gender-affirming care as "mutilation", who mocks people for being transgender, who calls LGBTQ persons "groomers" simply for acknowledging the existence of non-straight people to children (and that they should be fired as a result), and who advocates for murdering black people based on the color of their skin random police brutality, especially against black persons, for laughs. Edited:17:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)The least we can do to adhere to policy and fair WP:SUMMARY is call these comments "derogatory" — Shibbolethink 16:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From WaPo : Libs of TikTok reposts a steady stream of TikTok videos and social media posts, primarily from LGBTQ+ people, often including incendiary framing designed to generate outrage.

Daily Dot : Libs of TikTok regularly misconstrues the positions and statements of advocates for liberal causes like LGBTQ advancement and racial equality, such as by misgendering transgender people and maligning civil rights protesters as criminals.

The Times : Mocking liberal “hypocrisy” and “wokeness”, Libs of TikTok had amassed about 65,000 followers.

The Week : Many have critiqued the decision by Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz to reveal the identity of the woman behind Libs of TikTok, a popular right-wing (and previously anonymous) Twitter account which amplifies and condemns videos progressives have posted of themselves on social media.

Other sources, like Newsweek, Deseret, The Spectator, don't seem to agree with the characterization of the account as an active editorial voice, but WP:RSP suggests those sources are marginally reliable to unreliable and can only be used with attribution. There's clear agreement from WP:RS that the account is not passively reposting, but rather posting with a motive -- "incendiary framing", "maligning", "misconstrues", "amplifies", "condemns", "generate outrage", "mocking" are words in use by RS. "Derogatory" is an accurate paraphrase of this language. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am happy with that wording — Shibbolethink 21:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR and Boston Hospital

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

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

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

The edit in question: RSes for controversial material must be secondary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). It is explicitly not our job as wikipedia editors to interpret primary sources. Misplaced Pages is not the place to engage in investigative journalism or advocacy of your political opinion.The hospital is a primary source. WP:FOXNEWS and NCR are not RSes for this content, especially considering it is a political controversy. An additional concern is that this content is likely WP:UNDUE, given that it is so difficult to find a secondary RS covering it.Think about it: common sense tells us that it is a no-go to use a PRIMARY source to allege that a hospital is lying. Fox News is not going to be the place that gives us an unvarnished neutral view of whether or not they are, either. — Shibbolethink 14:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

e.g. "The hospital clarified to Fox News that 17-year-olds can only go to surgical consultation, but must turn 18 in order to qualify to obtain the surgery. That detail was missing from the original website page." and "“For surgical consultation, you must be 17 years of age and between 18 and 35 years of age at the time of surgery. We have since updated this to reflect the protocols for the practice, which we have always adhered to (no surgery under 18 years of age),” a hospital spokesperson told the outlet."This would dispute the content in the original edit. And gets so far into the weeds, the best approach would be to not cover it at all until a generally reliable secondary source does.If I were to write something based on the NR source, it would be:

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

— Shibbolethink 15:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you feel about the following draft, then?

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

Remember, consensus via compromise. — Shibbolethink 22:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Your version includes a great deal of UNDUE and POV material which is not verified by reliable sources and increases the real estate of this controversy on the page until it becomes a POV COATRACK, and I thus cannot support it. It also does not appear to have consensus here on the talk page, at least not at the moment. I would urge you to consider consensus via compromise. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or allow only your preferred position be the one you would accept in the article. As described above, I don't think any of this is DUE, but I am willing to accept a less strict interpretation of DUE if it means we achieve a compromise. If you aren't willing to do the same, I don't think we have much else to discuss until better or more numerous sources mention this material. Until then, I'm unwatching this thread. Tag me if something changes, and have a great day. — Shibbolethink 23:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit war over content about hospital recording

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

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

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

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

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

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

And there's also some general misleading wording:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect info

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

This edit request 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)

Three other hospitals

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 . Becker's Hospital Review backs up other cites as well, and names LoTT implicitly as the cause, calling claims "incorrect" against several hospitals . WaPo backs up claims around hospitals in Omaha and Phoenix, and calls claims against BCH "false" . IntoMore ran a story about the Nebraska hospital , 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)

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.) 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. 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.

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. 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. 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 , 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.. 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.. "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. 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. Hospitals have responded by releasing statements correcting the lies, contacting police, and locking down their social media accounts. 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, “ 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 and , if not about how to read the sources. I have modified the wording to reflect our RS ; 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 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 beneficialIt 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. (the same research publications we use to determine the consensus view on Misplaced Pages) 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 awarenessBy 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 Misplaced Pages: 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

FYI, I have opened an ANI on this topic at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continuous_BLUDGEONing,_IDHT,_and_OFFTOPIC_commentary_on_Talk:Libs_of_TikTok. Thanks. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of descriptors in lead

@X-Editor: it looks like you've removed the descriptors in the lead.. I've restored the agreed upon version . 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 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)

This sentence is not accurate

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 . 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)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Internet articles
• Low-importance Internet articles
• WikiProject Internet articles
• C-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Unassessed Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Articles created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride 2022