Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 2

1691:

don't have to be on the left to see that. Whether or not is moral is the dividing line between the two parties. Two, the mentions of what the account actually does is completely shifted from "reposting left-wing content (often in a derogatory manner)" to "critiquing pedophilic behavior". Prior to the Washington Post article coming out, the account was mostly posting the former, not the latter, in terms of content (prior to LoTT's quote retweet of Christina Pushaw's mention of the WaPo article, the tweets that followed involved two tweets about a pilot announcing the lift on the mask mandate from passengers mid-flight, one about the Family Sex Show which seems to fit with what you mention, a repost of a TikTok video about the definition of woman, a New York Post screenshot about a school district secretly allowing gender transitions, a Florida teacher's take on the 'Don't Say Gay' bill, and a University of New Hampshire professor's discussions about sexuality). Mentions of actual pedophilia or grooming are infrequently mentioned, which makes it unfitting to replace the mentions of reposting TikTok videos with such. Three, the source "The Spectator" is used. I've consulted

1825:

Post original and the News.com.au repost are that the first paragraph was re-worded to better reflect an expected Australian audience, two images were removed, and one video and two inline tweets from Libs of TikTok were added. Other than that, the content is verbatim identical to the NY Post. Accordingly it is not a collaborated source between the two publications. It is one publication (News.com.au) reposting the content of another (NY Post).

31: 256:

article, that line gives the impression that conservatives are just being whiny babies. This article could very well have been written for any left-wing website. Here's an exercise... imagine this article on a left-wing site and imagine an article about Libs of Tiktok written on a right-wing site and how different it would read. Now throw both out and start over without a clear bias from either side.

1126:

this article. If you disagree with the idea that Libs of TikTok is spreading conservative ideologies (contrary to the sources), then you haven't been viewing the same Twitter account. If you disagree with the idea Libs of TikTok shouldn't be mocking other people (which this article does not suggest), then you have an ideological difference.

1006:

identify as cats. She also purported that adults who teach children about LGBTQ+ identities are 'abusive,' that being gender-nonconforming or an ally to the LGBTQ+ community is a 'mental illness,' and referred to schools as “government run indoctrination camps” for the LGBTQ+ community." This is going far beyond simply reposting videos.

2781:"Libs of TikTok promotes conservatism and anti-LGBT rhetoric. The account has targeted schools and teachers, referring to schools as "government run indoctrination camps" for the LGBT community and encouraged followers to contact schools that allowed transgender students to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity." 1699:

There is something to be said about the (rough estimate, 20% of content) content on the Twitter account that does call out actual pedophilia, but such mentions require a reputable source mentioning it (not The Spectator) that is simply lacked from any source on the perennial sources list. If you have

1542:

A single person who's notable only for their activity under this account. The article is about the account itself. Chaya Raichick is relevant as the person behind the account and the unmasking is an important moment in the history of the account's activity, and as such, the article has information on

1172:

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

1098:

This article is encyclopedic so, no, it doesn't devalue the mission of Knowledge (XXG). I've stated this a few times, but if you believe there is an issue with the content on Knowledge (XXG), edit it. However, the account does make an effort to pitch itself as mocking other people (regardless of your

1061:

This article reads 100% like a hit piece, it devaules the entire mission of wikipedia and from the moment it claims the intent is to "mock", the author of this article exposes themselves as presumptive and biased, and juding anothers intent would be thrown out in any court of law and should be thrown

2817:

At this point, the content is cited to three generally reliable sources, two of which are newspapers of record in their respective countries. If there is some nuanced change that we're missing to better adhere to the sources, please let us know. A full removal on BLP grounds is unjustified. I commit

2677:

With respect to reverts, you appear to have me confused with another editor. I however have only reverted once. I will not be self-reverting, as there is no violation of BLP occurring. I agree with Aquillion's analysis of the Washington Post article, with respect to what it states in its own article

2542:

I can assure you that I am intimately familiar with those those policies and guidelines. Accordingly I will direct you to the reply directly above in this section by Aquillion. Neither the Washington Post nor Daily Dot articles are opinion pieces. And the same applies for the recently added citation

2065:

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

1824:

I've taken a brief look at the News.com.au source, and I would not consider it to be reliable in this instance. It is very clearly marked as a repost of a NY Post article, which as already discussed is an unreliable source. Reading the two pieces side by side, the only content changes between the NY

1650:

going to be used as another driving range to push left-wing bias. If you're going to mention detailed accounts of the controversial things posted by Libs Of Tiktok, then there is also room for the fact that the account criticized educators who were openly promoting peadophilia and masturbation among

1575:

Actions like the Babylon Bee deal, trademark request from Grant Lally as a "news reporting service" suggest the account is an entity that's quite separable from the individual. Maybe there should just be a section that focuses exclusively on the account manager and other sections don't mention her,

1264:

The name behind the account is prominently displayed and several sections are devoted to elaborating on this person, including a list of her views on different topics, expressed before "Libs of TikTok". This should clearly be discussed as a BLP issue. Pragmatically, this should be a BLP article, and

1245:

Any information about the account is inherently about Raichik since Raichik is the sole owner and operator of the account. So any information in this article is inherently about Raichik and is subject to the requirements in BLP. Which means this article should be written using high quality sources,

759:

I changed Libs of TikTok promotes conservatism and anti-LGBT rhetoric into Libs of TikTok is accused of promoting conservatism and anti-LGBT rhetoric because implying that Libs of TikTok is homophobic implies left wing bias. I included the phrase 'is accused' to maintain neutrality, since some don't

744:

Editing out the dialogue of the Oklahoma English teacher's video in which he said “If your parents don't accept you for who you are, f*** them. I'm your parents now” is misleading, because in this instance @libsoftiktok called for his removal due to comments against his students' parents rather than

2252:

Yeah, I agree. I've been AfK all day but I was planning to open a section here regarding the sheer volume of commentary and pull quotes that's being added. It's worth removing the more extreme commentary and the commentary that's more focused on Lorenz than on the account. It's not encyclopedic nor

1735:

Your attempt to pretend that the videos of LGBT activists promoting pedophilia or child sexualisation never happened are blatant delusion and a breach of neutrality. You cannot, and will not, use this article to focus solely on left-wing criticism of the account. There are numerous reliable sources

1398:

Independent coverage of this account (WaPo, Daily Dot, The Week, etc.) has described it as a brand rather than a pseudonymous personality. We don't consider articles about brands or publications strictly biographies even though they may include information about living persons (including here -- in

1129:

The basis of Knowledge (XXG) is sources, reliable sources, and this article's information is derived directly from those sources. If you have an issue with how the article presents itself, then this is more of a systemic issue with how these sources are used or their reliability on all of Knowledge

325:

That makes no sense. This article is filled with left-wing bias. Not right-wing bias. The only bias to remove is left-wing bias. In doing so would make the article neutral. Presenting different viewpoints is fine as long as it's made clear that these are the opinions of a particular group. But this

2425:

What is the relevance of quoting from these policies? Are you trying to say that there are what you think to be opinion pieces being used for statements of fact in the article? If so, you may wish to give a list detailing both the sources you believe to be opinion pieces, and which facts those are

1125:

I myself identify as a "leftist", but I leave my politics at home. If an article suggests something about a subject, politics shouldn't get in the way. I'm willing to fight both sides here, but at a certain point there needs to be an establishment of truth and there is an establishment of truth in

707:

I don't think it's "bias in both directions" to present the best version of both sides of a controversy, currently, only one side is presented. I don't know if this is suitable because it's an opinion piece, but this article makes the argument that the coverage is unfair because it doesn't address

675:

It would balance the article if it explained why LibsOfTiktok is so popular, which is because quite a bit of what it exposes is legitimately indefensible, people who are clearly not mentally fit in positions of authority over children. Exposing such things is ethical journalism because it protects

202:

It's not only biased but also quite nonsensical. In one sentence it says it linked to her home address and in the other sentence that conservatives accused newspapers of ALLEGED doxxing? First, it can't be alleged if we say it actually linked her home address, second they are accused of doing it,

2050:

I'm fine with not including the commentary purely about Lorenz in this article, but I don't see what's wrong with saying "Conservative news outlets also accused Barr and the Post of lying." instead of simply saying "The Spectator also accused the Post of lying." because more than one conservative

1690:

I went to the article's history to attempt to see your side of the argument, and I see two things. One, the mention of "in a derogatory manner" is removed from your edit, which is not an accurate depiction of what the account is. The account does directly mock members of the LGBTQ+ community, you

1654:

If you do not agree with the particular wording, there is always room to discuss ways of rephrasing, but deleting information that you don't like in order to keep the article focused solely on negative posts is a clear violation of neutrality. Please stop deleting factual, referenced information.

928:

If a news organization chooses to publicize an account's name (albeit, negating neutrality here, using basic OSINT tools to determine their name), that is the responsibility of the news organization, not Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) is not involved in the actions of the Washington Post or any

924:

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

691:

The problem with this is that Knowledge (XXG) depends on sources (reliable sources) and citations. If an article or piece of media can't explain why a thing is popular, then another (reputable) source should be found that can. If no reputable sources can justify what you suggest, then it can't be

255:

Really? The entire article reads from a very clear left-wing perspective. Just about every line in the content section of the article is extremely biased. About the only line from a right-wing perspective mentions how they are outraged she was doxxed. And after reading the rest of the rest of the

2560:

The article, as it stands, reads: "Libs of TikTok promotes conservatism and anti-LGBT rhetoric. The account has targeted schools and teachers, referring to schools as "government run indoctrination camps" for the LGBT community and encouraged followers to contact schools that allowed transgender

1865:

to include the 2 aforementioned examples of a transgender professor making apologetic remarks about pedophilia, and a woman who claims to teach children to masturbate "as soon as they can talk". I believe this content is just as noteworthy (if not more) than the rest of the examples cited in the

1836:

I would also suggest that the DRN request is premature, and non-compliant with the DRN instructions which require extensive discussion on this article's talk page. This discussion section has been open for a little over 24 hours, with only 8 comments made thus far. That said, in those 8 comments

1828:

I've also done a brief search for reliable sources on this. While I've found several on the suspension of the academic, when those sources do mention Libs of TikTok they only do so very briefly, within the context of linking the LoTT posts to the suspension. No mention has been made on the claim

1921:

going to reflect what the preponderance of reliable sources say. If that is contrary to your personal opinions, that's rally not something the Knowledge (XXG) can or will accommodate. spectatorworld.com will not be cited as a source in this article. The article will not repeat Raichik's fringe

1808:

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

1431:

Libs of TikTok does not use so called «anti LGBT» rhetoric unless you want to argue reposting videos made public by the creators is somehow anti LBGT which is a MAJOR stretch to claim. Furthermore the claim she has been saying the election was stolen is currently unsourced and should either be

1005:

shows that this is clearly not the case: "Her anti-trans tweets went especially viral. She called on her followers to contact schools that were allowing 'boys in the girls bathrooms' and pushed the false conspiracy theory that schools were installing litter boxes in bathrooms for children who

1478:

Like what Czello stated, the reason why that's mentioned in the article is because the article's reliable sources say it to be that, and posting other people's TikTok videos is not all Libs of TikTok does; even fans of the account would agree it doesn't do the LGBTQ+ community much service.

997:

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

1674:

The detailed accounts you bring up, such as quoting various tweets that Libs of TikTok (LoTT for future purposes) brings up, come from two sources; The Daily Dot and the Washington Post. They're directly mentioned in this article because they come straight from those sources. If there is a

968:

I agree. this article needs to be deleted. there is no prof of mocking and this is just an article to cause controversy. I also belive that this article is just a way of retaliation against someone who is just retweet what someone has already posted. I nominate this article to be deleted.

1967:

is sub-par. We should not be collecting random right-win opinions who are critical of Taylor Lorenz, who if one needs reminding, X-Editor, is not the subject of this article. The Washington Times in particular should not be used for commentary about living persons, per its entry at

1399:

which case, BLP policies exist for very good reason, but don't apply to the article as a whole). For better or for worse, it's pretty new territory writing articles about Internet accounts, and I wish there was more precedent on how to proceed here, but the best we have are the

217:

I don't have a dog in this fight, and simply came here for more information, but this article is horrifically biased. Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be an unbiased source of information. This article very clearly has a strong slant against the subject of this article.

933:, you can edit the articles yourself. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss matters that are outside of the scope of this talk page, however, and if you truly believe there is an issue with this article's promotion to the main namespace you can open an 1499:

Having thoughts on what the primary subject is here, because of late the source coverage is pretty much all about the reveal of the identity of the user and things she has done to warrant this attention in the first place. Perhaps that means an article renaming?

1138:. From what's seen by the sources (held to much more scrutiny than most of Knowledge (XXG)), Libs of TikTok does directly try to hold a conservative and anti-LGBT point of view. Whether that's okay is your opinion and I'm not going to try to sway it either way. 2608:

She also purported that adults who teach children about LGBTQ+ identities are “abusive,” that being gender-nonconforming or an ally to the LGBTQ+ community is a “mental illness,” and referred to schools as “government run indoctrination camps” for the LGBTQ+

2275:

Sorry my time is being cut short tonight, only time to skim what's ben added since. Generically citing that (reliably sourced) conservative outlets are critical of Lorenz is fine, what I am mainly opposed to is directly quoting the bad ones like the WTimes.

2183:

The problem is that there is essentially no mainstream commentary defending Libs of TikTok, which a lot of people are doing. To compensate, we must include more unreliable sources for the sake of balance, at least until there are better mainstream sources.

1670:

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

2901:

5 months. So, kindly, pipe down with the condescending "read the policies!" and the endless linking thereof. Second, it is painfully aware that you do not actually know what an "opinion piece" is, as none of the 3 citations for the above text are that.

929:

other news organization, and as you so claim, it's an encyclopedia. If your worldview doesn't align with Knowledge (XXG)'s, you're free to find another site to provide you that perspective, or, if you feel that Knowledge (XXG) (or this article) is too

1406:

None of this to say that we shouldn't be careful about sources, but blanking content of this page under broad interpretations of BLP isn't a constructive or particularly useful approach. If there's specific, questionable content in the article

2070:

problem, and needs work to get to NPOV. Do editors with a better sense of the RS coverage know if there are sources to replace the many unreliable and marginally reliable sources (e.g. Federalist, Fox News, Salon, Rolling Stone, Daily Beast)?

1940:, so this doesn't only apply to right-wing sources. Per WP:RSP, The Spectator is mostly opinion based journalism, meaning it is questionable to use as a source for facts. If you want to dispute this categorization of the source, head over to 2628:

refer to anything from a source that fails to properly distinguish news and opinion. But the Washington Post does make a clear distinction, so if you want to argue that the article is an opinion piece you will have to be more specific about

2458:

What makes you feel they are opinion pieces? Neither is labeled as such and the WaPo has a labeled opinion section that this isn't in; furthermore, both pieces have secondary coverage treating them as news. The WaPo piece in particular has

2527:. In short, only material that is stated as fact in the voice of the publication and not the individual author, can be attributed to the publication (e.g. "According to the NY Times...") and not the author (e.g. "Jane Doe writes that.."). 1695:

and The Spectator appears to be a risky source to use due to its opinion-based journalism, and would not be suitable for a lead (instead, suggest directly quoting the person instead, i.e. 'So and so from The Spectator said

1725: 2584:" Even if those particular phrases are to be found in all three pieces (which of course they are not), they would only be attributable to the columnists - not, the publication. As it stands, they feature no attribution 1311:

should solve (3), (1) has already been discussed at length here on this talk page to consensus. Could you be more clear on (2)? What specific statements, and where are they attributed to Raichik and not to the account?

2611:

That's a statement of fact in the article voice, which should be similarly covered as fact in our article voice unless there's a reason to doubt it or think that it is just opinion. We can't attribute it because per

2399:

This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

1651:

young children. Whether you feel this is moral or not is irrelevant - the public deserves to know as it is these very posts that has made Libs Of Tiktok so popular among conservatives. These are relevant details.

1590:

It is in fact an LLC, and I would say as a whole, along with the drama about the creator, Libs of TikTok is the primary topic and should remain the primary topic. Everything else can be covered within the article.

806:

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

1576:

comparable to how e.g. articles on crimes will often contain a short bios of the perpetrator/victim and the rest is focused on the event. Bad example maybe, but maybe a good article structure to base this off of.

2818:

to providing quotes from the reliable sources to justify the article text if anyone else agrees with EN1792's view here. Right now, there's clear consensus that the content is supported and the sources reliable.

2128:

I think you're not understanding Firefangledfeathers's point. Yes, they're only cited for attributed opinions, but getting a bunch of attributed opinions from otherwise unreliable source is likely going to be

2113:

I removed Salon and The Daily Beast. Rolling Stone and The Federalist are only cited for attributed opinions, so there's no need to remove them. I also removed Fox News references backed up by better sources.

2882:

in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." It's not complicated.

606:

about removing the collection of previously expressed personal views which are clearly listed to discredit the account holder. The views were expressed under her own name and not under "Libs of TikTok".

1861:

Hi, I'm happy with your suggested compromise. If it's the part about "popular among conservatives" that you have doubts about, I'm happy to omit that. However there's no reason for the Content section

346:"Presenting different viewpoints is fine as long as it's made clear that these are the opinions of a particular group." That's exactly what I was suggesting. Fix the article if you think it is biased. 103: 970: 1111:

WIkiepedia is also not a venue for (mostly white) progressive males to propagate their leftist ideology. This article is unbelievably biased and should either be completely rewritten or deleted.

2637:

if you think that the Washington Post itself is not generally reliable for statements of fact, but that seems like a stretch? I'm genuinely not following your argument beyond that - the sources

1713:

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

2924:- given you admit to not comprehending what Wiki Policy plainly states. To avoid further embarrassment, you have two possible courses of action: either make a good faith attempt to understand 233: 1384:

Are you saying that wikipedia should self censor to protect widely publicised information from public consumption due to the fact that the subject of the article desires to remain anonymous?

1112: 1069: 692:

included, even if you believe that your viewpoint is correct (full disclosure, I don't think Libs of TikTok is doing the world a favor and I don't think it's engaging in ethical journalism).

695:

Content-wise about what you suggest, even if there is a reputable source, it's playing two sides. Ideally, an article should non-biased (like PBS or the AP), not biased in both directions.

94:

it seems worthwhile to mention in the article that the creator, maintainer and owner of the account were live tweeting the insurrection, which can be easily sourced to multiple others per

2463:

secondary coverage, virtually all of which describes it as reporting; the fact that the subject might disagree with or dislike their reporting does not automatically render it opinion. --

1369:

So, if you're known under a pseudonym and secretive about your private life, you should not be categorized as a "living person". Does that apply to musicians, youtubers, artists as well?

1046:). The author's original intentions are murky, however, because this article is worthy of being on the main namespace and has been altered by many other people regardless of its origins. 2663:). If you have been editing all these years without knowing the difference between commentary and news reports, then you are going to have to ask yourself some very serious questions. 2620:

you feel it is just an opinion. Is your assertion that the simple fact that the article has an author makes it an opinion piece? Because that is definitely not how it works. Normally,

2486:) this evening/morning (timezone dependent). Neither of those sources is an opinion piece, and both are considered reliable. I would also note that another editor has recently added a 2373:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say " says....".

2379:

in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion.

1177:

There's no biographical information in this article about the manager of the account, the content is solely about the content the account posts and press surrounding the account.

1812:

I would redo this by finding a better source that comes directly from a reputable source (or from it itself) and by stating something like "The account also posts such and such"

1038:

The proof is provided in the three sources, and as I stated earlier to another user, most would agree (even fans of the account) that it does mock other people. This article was

882:

Neutrality isn't a binding agreement to never write anything negative or consequential, it's the opposite. Reliable sources are reporting this and we are simply summarizing it.

1736:

which confirm that the account gained notoriety for calling out LGBT members who expressed outright inappropriate, sexually explicit views of children. This will be re-added.

101: 2748:

I have already said both here and on my talk page I will not self-revert. I would also suggest you pick a single point for arguing, instead of what now appears to be a

1134:(but be bold with caution and keep in mind the aforementioned reliable sources). For the latter, this is not an argument that should be had on this article, but rather 95: 2169:

I agree with Elli on this, well said. There is so much mainstream commentary at this point that there's no encyclopedic reason to put emphasis on fringe commentary.

451:

The fact that you can't see the bias means you need to recuse yourself from editing or discussing this article, as you are clearly experiencing said bias yourself.

3061: 3029: 1937: 2985: 2954: 2734:. I will gladly revert an attempt to remove sourced an accurate information from the article when it is based on a disingenuous claim of being backed by policy. 1770:

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

509: 386: 311:

Removing the left-wing perspective does not make the article neutral, it would only make the article biased against the left, which is the opposite of neutral.

1869:

Like I said, I'm happy to mention these in the "Content" section, using the direct Tweets as a source. That is the only reasonable compromise I can see here.

778:. Libs of TikTok does spread both of those things, whether you're on board with it or not. What the reader takes away from that is their independent beliefs. 2708:). I invite you a second time to self-revert, and remind you again that "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced... 1777:

I am also not using the New York Post as a source, I'm using a collaborated source from news.com.au, one of Australia's largest and most trusted news sites.

3037:. Can this study's findings be featured in the article if it comes from these more reputable references and also has in-text attribution to Media Matters? 1717:

The Spectator article links to an actual Tweet made by LoTT. As far as I know, Knowledge (XXG) also allows using Tweets as a source for what someone said.

1792: 1293:

Yes. 1) The account is anonymous. Should her name be stated? 2) The statements about her intent. 3) The list of her personal views meant to discredit. ––

2362: 1193: 1994:

and believes we need to include all criticism and far right sources. Ideally they would've discussed it since it's a contested edit. Oh well, I tried.

1511:

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

3059: 3035: 2827: 2103: 2080: 1231:, but this article as a whole is not subject to BLP. That said, if there is specific content you feel does not fit with BLP, could you describe that? 1941: 1042:

designed to start drama, although its original author may have a personal bias (which Knowledge (XXG) doesn't allow in the contents of articles, see

486:

The whole page is Leftist transgender and covid mandate propaganda. It's not neutral. WP has became a political ground for modern western leftists.

2019:

I reverted it to add back the non-conservative stuff that was accidentally reverted and then removed the conservative stuff immediately afterwards

2920:. If you are unable to distinguish between commentary and reportage, then you have no business whatsoever editing on such topics and discussing 2678:

voice, how other reliable secondary sources have also concurred with what the WaPo has published, and how that impacts upon our policy of NPOV.

2395:: it is not Knowledge (XXG)'s job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; 1209:

A twitter account owned and operated by one person. You can't separate the twitter account from the person, so BLP applies to this article. --

2290:

The problem is that this article is not about Lorenz, it is about Libs of TikTok. Those sources focus mostly on Lorenz and not Libs of TikTok.

725:

The article is fine as-is with how it's presented. I've browsed the account, and while some of what they say (such as the stuff they say about

1700:

an issue with The Spectator's placement on the list, I suggest you bring up a discussion there. There's nothing anyone here can do about it.

709: 452: 1750:

I'm not attempting to discredit LoTT by any means on that front. However, if you're going to mention that they do this, you need to do it

2897:

My good sir, first off, it appears that those of us here discussing this have been around the Knowledge (XXG) for a bit longer than your

1433: 974: 1544: 1451:

say, and they support the current wording. You'll also find the citation for the stolen election claim at the end of the paragraph. —

712: 677: 621:

I've improved the wording to attribute the views to the account rather than to the individual, which should solve this issue. Cheers,

1981: 229: 1116: 1073: 204: 894:

Why do you delete my reply? It is just straight up Streisand effect. Don't worry, it won't hurt to tell that your guy did wrong.q

729:

groomers in classrooms (albeit from already public knowledge), the major rhetoric on the account is focused on anti-LGBT messaging.

107: 2655:

Knowledge (XXG) Policy is clear. Pieces by columnists are, by definition, opinion - not reportage. Either this is a clear case of

2606:

You will have to be more specific about what you feel those sources are not stating as fact and why? The WaPo source simply says

1758:. The New York Post is not reliable, and if you take issue with that you are more than welcome to challenge the source elsewhere. 1719: 225: 594:

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

2967: 2933: 2888: 2845: 2807: 2717: 2668: 2597: 2532: 2449: 2415: 1626:

right in the article. The only reason it is named after the account handle is that was all we had to go on in the beginning.

955: 899: 829: 815: 569: 532: 491: 2624:

refers to things published in labeled opinion sections or in sections and sources devoted to opinion; in some situations it

2823: 2099: 2076: 81: 76: 71: 59: 2152: 950:

This is not a forum or social media site. You don't have callout posts on physical encyclopedias (if you ever seen one)

1809:

background). Two, the article (in its current form) doesn't state that it's popular among conservatives for that reason.

1624:

Raichik claims to run the account alone and said she moved from New York to California to work on the account full-time.

1002: 110: 1355:

covers this in detail -- generally I'd suggest bringing this topic to that section if you'd like to reopen discussion.

2981: 2950: 1505: 3032:

from them on its own would not be usable. However, two more reputable sources have republished their study's findings

2800: 2656: 99: 2999: 2971: 2211: 2142: 859: 38: 2403: 3055: 2963: 2929: 2884: 2841: 2803: 2713: 2664: 2593: 2528: 2445: 2411: 2385:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.

965: 951: 895: 841: 825: 811: 565: 544: 528: 503: 487: 105: 2837: 2365:) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable— 2199: 1844: 732:

I will attempt to work on the article more on the weekend and iron out some of the creases in terms of wording.

291:

I don't want to add the right wing perspective. I want to remove the left-wing perspective and make it neutral.

2856:

The article text is supported by the citations that immediately follow said text. The citations are denoted by

2819: 2095: 2072: 765: 750: 161: 2917: 2660: 456: 3033: 1437: 2066:

oppose giving additional weight to the views of unreliable sources. The article as a whole has that kind of

1891:

need to report on the content you describe and connect it to LoTT before it could be added to this article.

1883:

Tweets from LoTT are not a strong enough citation for content about firings, as it will need to stand up to

716: 681: 1065: 221: 208: 2977: 2946: 2757: 2683: 2548: 2497: 2431: 1866:

article, particularly because these posts from LoTT led to those in the videos being fired or disciplined.

1852: 1548: 1469: 1389: 1326:

Can you point to one place on this talk page where a lengthy discussion has developed into a consensus? --

1200: 428: 183: 2621: 1888: 1165: 1084:

Did you even read my comment? What they've said makes it pretty clear what the intent of the account is.

710:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/04/20/the_new_class_chasm_in_the_culture_wars_147496.html

2996: 2397:

the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

3028:

I am aware of Media Matters being determined to be an unreliable source for this article, meaning this

2943: 1724:

The Tweet and the pedophilia reference (as well as the fact that the poster was fired for it) was also

3096: 2266: 2174: 1896: 1814: 1760: 1702: 1581: 1566: 1527:. This isn't a role or brand account, not is it a corporation. These are a single person's opinions. 1481: 1416: 1360: 1317: 1284: 1236: 1182: 1140: 1101: 1048: 939: 780: 734: 697: 665: 646: 626: 474: 411: 334: 299: 264: 1843:

is proposing. Unless Domiy can find a suitable reliable secondary source, I would suggest that they

2646: 2468: 2151:

I still disagree because removing these sources would remove a lot of insightful commentary, which

1631: 1602:

Not convinced it should focus on the person, per others. But things could always change over time.

1532: 1023: 761: 746: 173: 157: 47: 17: 2731: 2492:. None of the three sources nor the content they are being used to support are violations of BLP. 1561:

between the account and the individual managing the account, and the article should reflect that.

1131: 910: 3082: 3042: 2907: 2869: 2739: 2391: 2327: 2295: 2281: 2225: 2189: 2160: 2119: 2056: 2027: 1977: 1949: 1927: 1607: 1464:

Reposting videos and adding commentary about "degeneracy" and "grooming" is definitely anti LGBT

1374: 1331: 1298: 1270: 1089: 1027: 1022:

Her reposting is not mocking. It's criticizing and exposint what she believes is inappropriate.

1011: 988: 873: 868:

The info about her is already available to the public, so featuring it here doesn't change much.

612: 584: 564:

You say "nobody is stopping you" and then undoing their edits? You are the one who is stopping.

554: 517: 394: 369: 351: 316: 282: 246: 134: 97: 2792: 2701: 2616:

it is a NPOV violation to state a fact as an opinion, and you haven't actually given any reason

2130: 2067: 1755: 1692: 775: 126: 641:

You removed my edit, say to "see talk" but I don't see anything specifically explaining why...

3068: 2795:

regardless of the fact that it is a BLP. I've also quoted above specifically what elements of

2753: 2679: 2544: 2493: 2427: 1848: 1465: 1385: 1196: 424: 179: 2705: 2613: 2516: 1684: 1279:

Do you find there are specific BLP issues or poorly cited content in the Background section?

1246:

be dispassionate in tone, and not be sensationalist. Which by large this article is not. --

1043: 930: 3058:, the account has named more than 222 educational institutions in 2022 alone as of April 28. 2991: 2692:

With all due respect, your or my opinion (or "analysis") of any given column is irrelevant.

1251: 1214: 1062:

out here. The intent might simply be to expose. This is the same intent as this article.

326:

article as a whole in the way it is written is completely biased when it should be neutral.

2796: 2693: 2634: 2589: 2577: 2520: 2387: 2354: 2313: 1969: 1884: 1228: 1161: 1135: 934: 847: 3092: 2262: 2170: 2045: 2014: 1995: 1892: 1874: 1799: 1782: 1741: 1660: 1592: 1577: 1562: 1412: 1356: 1313: 1280: 1232: 1178: 925:

article is on the main namespace because it's mentioned by various reputable news sources.

914: 883: 661: 656:

Apologies, I should have been more clear. Discussion of the wording in the lead is in the

642: 638: 622: 601: 469: 406: 380: 329: 294: 259: 112: 2925: 2921: 2788: 2730:"BLP VIOLATION!", it doesn't automatically make it true. We even have an essay for this, 2697: 2512: 2350: 2309: 1558: 1495:

What is the subject matter? The Twitter account, the unmasking, or Chaya Raichik herself?

1448: 1400: 708:

the fact that at least some of what libsoftiktok is exposing is legitimately concerning:

2322:

OP indeffed. By the blocking comment, largely because of their behavior in this thread.

2642: 2464: 2207: 2138: 1627: 1528: 855: 3052:

With a secondary source that seems fine. I don't see any problems with something like

2942:

There are ways to evaluate competence... For instance... EnlightenmentNow1792, is this

3078: 3038: 2903: 2879: 2865: 2735: 2524: 2376: 2323: 2291: 2277: 2221: 2185: 2156: 2115: 2091: 2052: 2038: 2023: 2007: 1987: 1973: 1945: 1923: 1603: 1501: 1370: 1327: 1294: 1266: 1085: 1007: 984: 869: 608: 580: 550: 513: 390: 365: 347: 312: 278: 242: 130: 3100: 3086: 3072: 3046: 2937: 2911: 2892: 2873: 2849: 2831: 2811: 2761: 2743: 2721: 2687: 2672: 2650: 2601: 2552: 2536: 2501: 2472: 2453: 2435: 2419: 2331: 2299: 2285: 2270: 2229: 2215: 2193: 2178: 2164: 2146: 2123: 2107: 2084: 2060: 2031: 2000: 1953: 1931: 1900: 1878: 1856: 1847:

as without such sourcing any further discussion is pointless and doomed to failure.

1819: 1803: 1786: 1765: 1745: 1707: 1664: 1635: 1611: 1597: 1585: 1570: 1552: 1536: 1486: 1473: 1459: 1441: 1420: 1393: 1378: 1364: 1335: 1321: 1302: 1288: 1274: 1255: 1240: 1218: 1204: 1186: 1145: 1120: 1106: 1093: 1077: 1053: 1031: 1015: 992: 978: 959: 944: 919: 903: 888: 877: 863: 833: 824:"this is not a forum" agreed, that's why you should not dox people and be neutral. 819: 785: 769: 754: 739: 720: 702: 685: 669: 650: 630: 616: 588: 573: 558: 536: 521: 495: 481: 460: 432: 418: 398: 373: 355: 341: 320: 306: 286: 271: 250: 212: 187: 178:

Could you be more specific as to what "something" you are referring to here please?

165: 138: 117: 3064: 2257:

published opinion piece and sticking a dozen pull quotes into this article. I made

1515:

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

1960:

Nipping the proverbial bud. Don't make this into a criticism page of Taylor Lorenz

2783:

Those two sentences include at least 6 separate claims that aren't attributed to

277:

If you want to add the right-wing perspective, go ahead, nobody is stopping you.

2749: 1453: 1353:

Should the personal information about the creator of Libs of TikTok be redacted?

1247: 1210: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2641:

seem to say these things as fact, and they're definitely not opinion pieces. --

1164:, the topic is a Twitter account. I would recommend removing this article from 1870: 1795: 1778: 1737: 1656: 360:

You did not fix the article or add any new perspective, you just resorting to

2203: 2134: 1173:

the article is a biography of a person related to that organization or group

851: 810:

Also deleting this won't make it any better. Streisand effect, if you will.

508:

If you think there are specific neutrality problems with the article, go to

403:

I think it's fairly neutral if it stays as is after I did some cleaning up.

385:

If you think there are specific neutrality problems with the article, go to

125:

We're not going to be baited into a "they were just a peaceful mob" debate.

2976:

I am not joking. What is the supposed competence issue in the linked diff?

2582:

burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

1831:

that LoTT brings up direct pedophilia and masturbation among young children

2861: 676:

children. I'm not sure of the best way to articulate this in the article.

1922:

opinions regarding LGBT advocacy and pedophilia. This is not negotiable.

1523:

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

2857: 2959:

I hope you're joking. But yes, there are ways, indeed, for instance...

1936:

We've also removed references for the left-leaning Media Matters per

579:

That's because you are whitewashing the article by removing content.

2878:

Read the relevant policies please. E.g. "A prime example of this is

2561:

students to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity."

1504:(which should be a redirect if it isn't already). Or some form of 1265:

I understand that the reason for this category is pragmatical. ––

2710:

should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

2367:

should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

2477:

Ahh, you're referring to the content erroneously removed twice (

1959: 3054:

According to analysis by the left-leaning media watchdog group

2752:

of BOLDTEXT links to various policies, guidelines, and essays.

2444:

and DailyDot articles. Sorry, I assumed that much was obvious.

2253:

an accurate summary of reliable commentary to go about finding

983:

There is no proof of mocking? The proof is the entire account.

3091:

Agreed, wording looks solid as it is included in the article.

1791:

Also, please note that a dispute resolution/mediation request

25: 2990:

EnlightenmentNow has been blocked indefinitely (not by me).

2836:

Our opinion ("consensus") is irrelevant. Knowledge (XXG) is

1990:

I tried to restore your well written version but it appears

2928:, or recuse yourself from such ill-informed argumentation. 2799:

such claims are in breach of. I can't make it any clearer.

1839: 1557:

I agree with 46 above. There's a clear distinction made by

527:

Transgender and covid mandate propaganda are not neutral.

423:

You didnt "clean up", you whitewashed credible information

2426:

being used in support of. Otherwise this seems pointless.

850:

discussion if you believe this article should be deleted.

2406:

rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

1837:

there seems to be a rather clear consensus against what

1099:

stance on that) and Knowledge (XXG) is not a courtroom.

2960: 2488: 2483: 2479: 2258: 2020: 1991: 1964: 1833:, at least in connection between LoTT and the academic. 1681:

direct pedophilia and masturbation among young children

1308: 361: 2440:

Only two sources are used - both opinion pieces - the

1642:

Please stop deleting factual information to push bias

156:

How can you Livestream something that didn't happen?

2198:That's not what we're supposed to do; please read 109:(irecognize the two newsweek sources are dubious) 2383: 2371: 2361:Contentious material about living persons (or, 2359: 1521: 1513: 1192:I agree, there is no reason for this to be in 2523:if you are unsure as to what qualifies as an 1194:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons 1170: 8: 2312:) for statements of fact - especially for a 2633:. Alternatively, you can take the issue to 1622:Entirely unconvinced here, esp. as we have 2338:The following discussion has been closed. 2318: 1730:which also links to the tweet made by LoTT 1679:source that can claim that LoTT brings up 1063: 145:The following discussion has been closed. 121: 2349:Quoting the most pertinent passages from 2308:Opinion pieces are not reliable sources ( 1728:, a very reliable Australian news source 1411:please do bring it to attention. Cheers, 1130:(XXG). I would suggest, for the former, 2922:reliable secondary and tertiary sources 2051:news outlet has accused them of lying. 971:2600:1004:B0E4:8DCE:45AE:8E49:64F2:F526 913:and take your nonsense somewhere else. 3053: 2780: 2607: 1830: 1623: 1227:Raichik in this article is subject to 549:Did you not read what I posted above? 241:What parts of the article are biased? 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2557:Then you will kindly cease reverting. 760:believe Libs of TikTok is homophobic 226:2601:2c1:8200:620:e118:c627:b6aa:166a 7: 1683:(not LGBTQ+ content; that is a huge 1113:2601:602:180:2C0:9177:3CE8:BC55:1DDC 1070:2601:602:180:2C0:3821:DAB9:EC16:C363 466:It needs to be cleaned up big-time. 2588:- which is in blatant violation of 2511:Please familiarize yourselves with 203:not accused of allegedly doing it. 2388:Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia 1720:Here is a direct link to the Tweet 24: 2564:None of that is attributable to 2363:in some cases, recently deceased 1506:Libs of TikTok identity incident 29: 2864:. I can't make it any clearer. 2592:. I invite you to self-revert. 2261:yesterday but it was reverted. 1687:problem), then add it yourself. 1: 2962:I mean.. wow. Just... wow... 935:articles for deletion request 2153:would make the article worse 745:for "supporting LGBT youth" 2916:Then this is a question of 2375:A prime example of this is 3117: 3000:17:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2986:05:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2972:05:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2955:05:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2938:05:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2912:05:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2893:04:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2874:04:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2850:04:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2832:04:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2812:04:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2762:04:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2744:04:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2722:04:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2688:04:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2673:04:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2651:04:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2602:04:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2553:04:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2537:03:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2502:03:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2473:03:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2454:03:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2436:03:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2420:03:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2332:22:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 2300:00:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 2286:00:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 2271:23:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC) 2230:19:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC) 2216:04:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC) 2194:04:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC) 2179:02:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC) 2165:17:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 2147:14:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 2124:01:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 2108:01:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 2085:01:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 2061:18:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC) 2032:18:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC) 2001:18:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC) 1982:18:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC) 1954:17:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC) 1944:and make your case there. 1932:16:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC) 1901:02:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC) 1879:02:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC) 1857:23:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 1820:04:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 1804:04:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 1787:04:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 1766:04:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 1746:03:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 1708:16:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC) 1665:11:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC) 1636:11:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC) 1612:17:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC) 1598:16:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC) 1586:15:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC) 1571:15:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC) 1553:15:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC) 1537:14:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC) 1487:14:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 1474:13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 1460:09:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 1442:09:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 1421:21:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 1394:13:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 1379:08:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 1365:18:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 1336:18:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 1322:18:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 1303:18:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 1289:18:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 1275:18:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 1256:18:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 1241:18:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 1219:18:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 1205:17:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 1187:16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 1146:17:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC) 1121:17:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 1107:03:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 1094:15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 1078:10:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 1054:03:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 1032:23:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC) 1016:07:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 993:03:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 979:01:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 960:23:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 945:03:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 920:23:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 904:23:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 889:23:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 878:23:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 864:23:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 834:23:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 820:23:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 786:17:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC) 770:16:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC) 755:14:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC) 740:22:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 721:19:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 703:03:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 686:03:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 670:20:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 651:19:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 631:18:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 617:18:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 589:22:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 574:22:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 559:22:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 537:22:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 522:22:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 496:22:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 482:19:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 461:23:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 433:13:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 419:22:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 399:22:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 374:22:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 356:22:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 342:21:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 321:20:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 307:19:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 287:19:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 272:19:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 251:19:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 213:07:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 188:22:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC) 166:21:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC) 139:23:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC) 118:02:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC) 3056:Media Matters for America 2787:RS. That's in breach of 2341:Please do not modify it. 1726:reported by News.com.au, 1427:Remove preposterous lies 1409:regarding the individual 148:Please do not modify it. 3101:20:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC) 3087:04:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC) 3073:03:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC) 3047:00:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC) 846:you're free to open an 2659:or one of competence ( 2580:clearly states, the " 2543:to The Times as well. 2409: 2382: 2370: 2259:an edit to this extent 1525: 1517: 1175: 2489:third reliable source 1160:This article isn't a 966:@All cats are british 848:Articles for Deletion 42:of past discussions. 2964:EnlightenmentNow1792 2930:EnlightenmentNow1792 2885:EnlightenmentNow1792 2842:EnlightenmentNow1792 2804:EnlightenmentNow1792 2779:Article text reads: 2714:EnlightenmentNow1792 2665:EnlightenmentNow1792 2594:EnlightenmentNow1792 2529:EnlightenmentNow1792 2446:EnlightenmentNow1792 2412:EnlightenmentNow1792 1917:Doimy, this article 1815:elijahpepe@wikipedia 1793:has been opened here 1761:elijahpepe@wikipedia 1703:elijahpepe@wikipedia 1482:elijahpepe@wikipedia 1141:elijahpepe@wikipedia 1102:elijahpepe@wikipedia 1049:elijahpepe@wikipedia 952:All cats are british 940:elijahpepe@wikipedia 896:All cats are british 842:All cats are british 826:All cats are british 812:All cats are british 781:elijahpepe@wikipedia 735:elijahpepe@wikipedia 698:elijahpepe@wikipedia 566:All cats are british 545:All cats are british 529:All cats are british 504:All cats are british 488:All cats are british 90:insurrection mention 3024:Media Matters study 2820:Firefangledfeathers 2096:Firefangledfeathers 2073:Firefangledfeathers 1754:and with regard to 1543:both those things. 1432:sourced or removed 18:Talk:Libs of TikTok 2945:an opinion piece? 2404:burden of evidence 1992:X-Editor disagrees 1447:We go by what our 3021: 3020: 2801:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 2726:Just because you 2657:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 1889:Secondary sources 1166:Project:Biography 1080: 1068:comment added by 660:section. Cheers, 480: 417: 340: 305: 270: 224:comment added by 195: 194: 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3108: 2994: 2978:Horse Eye's Back 2947:Horse Eye's Back 2696:is clear (as is 2491: 2485: 2481: 2343: 2319: 2110: 2049: 2042: 2018: 2011: 1998: 1842: 1818: 1764: 1706: 1646:This article is 1595: 1485: 1449:reliable sources 1144: 1105: 1052: 943: 917: 886: 845: 802:Deletion request 784: 774:This seems like 738: 701: 605: 548: 507: 479: 477: 472: 467: 416: 414: 409: 404: 384: 339: 337: 332: 327: 304: 302: 297: 292: 269: 267: 262: 257: 237: 177: 150: 122: 115: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3116: 3115: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3026: 2992: 2838:not a democracy 2487: 2482: 2478: 2339: 2317: 2200:WP:FALSEBALANCE 2089: 2043: 2036: 2012: 2005: 1996: 1962: 1845:WP:DROPTHESTICK 1838: 1813: 1759: 1701: 1644: 1593: 1497: 1480: 1429: 1403:on the subject. 1158: 1139: 1100: 1047: 938: 915: 884: 839: 804: 779: 733: 696: 599: 542: 501: 475: 470: 468: 412: 407: 405: 378: 335: 330: 328: 300: 295: 293: 265: 260: 258: 219: 200: 171: 146: 113: 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3114: 3112: 3104: 3103: 3089: 3075: 3025: 3022: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2899:*checks notes* 2880:opinion pieces 2854: 2853: 2852: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2746: 2661:WP:INCOMPETENT 2562: 2558: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2475: 2377:opinion pieces 2345: 2344: 2335: 2334: 2316: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2273: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2167: 2090:meant to ping 2034: 1961: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1934: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1867: 1859: 1834: 1826: 1810: 1806: 1775: 1733: 1715: 1697: 1688: 1672: 1643: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1600: 1496: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1462: 1428: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1404: 1396: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1157: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1127: 1096: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1020: 1019: 1018: 948: 947: 926: 922: 892: 891: 880: 866: 803: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 762:Senseidavidtav 747:Senseidavidtav 730: 693: 673: 672: 636: 635: 634: 633: 592: 591: 562: 561: 525: 524: 464: 463: 453:108.45.179.249 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 376: 358: 253: 199: 196: 193: 192: 191: 190: 174:Innican Soufou 158:Innican Soufou 152: 151: 142: 141: 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3113: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3063: 3062: 3060: 3057: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3034: 3031: 3023: 3001: 2998: 2995: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2900: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2881: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2610: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2525:Opinion piece 2522: 2518: 2514: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2490: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2408: 2407: 2405: 2398: 2394: 2393: 2389: 2381: 2380: 2378: 2369: 2368: 2364: 2358: 2356: 2352: 2347: 2346: 2342: 2337: 2336: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2320: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2274: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2251: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2220:Fair enough. 2219: 2218: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2112: 2111: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2069: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2047: 2040: 2035: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2016: 2009: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1999: 1993: 1989: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1966: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1920: 1916: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1841: 1835: 1832: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1816: 1811: 1807: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1794: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1762: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1734: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1721: 1716: 1714: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1704: 1698: 1694: 1689: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1673: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1652: 1649: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1599: 1596: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1509: 1507: 1503: 1502:Chaya Raichik 1494: 1488: 1483: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1461: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1450: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1434:46.230.132.31 1426: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1405: 1402: 1397: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1367: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1310: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1263: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1195: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1174: 1169: 1167: 1163: 1155: 1147: 1142: 1137: 1133: 1128: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1103: 1097: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1055: 1050: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1004: 1000: 999: 996: 995: 994: 990: 986: 982: 981: 980: 976: 972: 967: 964: 963: 962: 961: 957: 953: 946: 941: 936: 932: 927: 923: 921: 918: 912: 908: 907: 906: 905: 901: 897: 890: 887: 881: 879: 875: 871: 867: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 843: 838: 837: 836: 835: 831: 827: 822: 821: 817: 813: 808: 801: 787: 782: 777: 773: 772: 771: 767: 763: 758: 757: 756: 752: 748: 743: 742: 741: 736: 731: 728: 724: 723: 722: 718: 714: 711: 706: 705: 704: 699: 694: 690: 689: 688: 687: 683: 679: 671: 667: 663: 659: 658:Media Matters 655: 654: 653: 652: 648: 644: 640: 632: 628: 624: 620: 619: 618: 614: 610: 603: 598:I agree with 597: 596: 595: 590: 586: 582: 578: 577: 576: 575: 571: 567: 560: 556: 552: 546: 541: 540: 539: 538: 534: 530: 523: 519: 515: 511: 505: 500: 499: 498: 497: 493: 489: 484: 483: 478: 473: 462: 458: 454: 450: 434: 430: 426: 422: 421: 420: 415: 410: 402: 401: 400: 396: 392: 388: 382: 377: 375: 371: 367: 364:the subject. 363: 359: 357: 353: 349: 345: 344: 343: 338: 333: 324: 323: 322: 318: 314: 310: 309: 308: 303: 298: 290: 289: 288: 284: 280: 276: 275: 273: 268: 263: 254: 252: 248: 244: 240: 239: 238: 235: 231: 227: 223: 215: 214: 210: 206: 197: 189: 185: 181: 175: 170: 169: 168: 167: 163: 159: 154: 153: 149: 144: 143: 140: 136: 132: 128: 124: 123: 120: 119: 116: 111: 108: 106: 104: 102: 100: 98: 96: 89: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3077:Looks good. 3030:recent study 3027: 2898: 2784: 2778: 2754:Sideswipe9th 2727: 2709: 2680:Sideswipe9th 2638: 2630: 2625: 2622:WP:RSOPINION 2617: 2585: 2581: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2545:Sideswipe9th 2510: 2494:Sideswipe9th 2460: 2441: 2428:Sideswipe9th 2410: 2401: 2396: 2386: 2384: 2374: 2372: 2366: 2360: 2348: 2340: 2254: 1997:PRAXIDICAE💕 1963: 1918: 1862: 1849:Sideswipe9th 1771: 1751: 1729: 1722:in question. 1718: 1712: 1680: 1676: 1653: 1647: 1645: 1594:PRAXIDICAE💕 1545:46.97.170.50 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1498: 1466:Googleguy007 1454: 1452: 1430: 1408: 1386:Googleguy007 1368: 1352: 1351:The section 1350: 1224: 1223:Information 1197:Googleguy007 1176: 1171: 1159: 1064:— Preceding 1060: 1039: 1003:WaPo article 949: 893: 823: 809: 805: 726: 713:72.48.20.137 678:72.48.20.137 674: 657: 637: 593: 563: 526: 485: 465: 425:Googleguy007 362:whitewashing 220:— Preceding 216: 201: 180:Sideswipe9th 155: 147: 93: 65: 43: 37: 2993:Doug Weller 2860:encased in 2750:gish gallop 916:CUPIDICAE💕 885:CUPIDICAE💕 471:Gamezero05 408:Gamezero05 331:Gamezero05 296:Gamezero05 261:Gamezero05 205:95.82.133.2 114:CUPIDICAE💕 36:This is an 3095:(he/him • 3093:SiliconRed 2918:competence 2609:community. 2265:(he/him • 2263:SiliconRed 2173:(he/him • 2171:SiliconRed 2046:Praxidicae 2015:Praxidicae 1895:(he/him • 1893:SiliconRed 1580:(he/him • 1578:SiliconRed 1565:(he/him • 1563:SiliconRed 1415:(he/him • 1413:SiliconRed 1359:(he/him) ( 1357:SiliconRed 1316:(he/him) ( 1314:SiliconRed 1283:(he/him) ( 1281:SiliconRed 1235:(he/him) ( 1233:SiliconRed 1181:(he/him) ( 1179:SiliconRed 664:(he/him) ( 662:SiliconRed 643:Bendespain 639:SiliconRed 625:(he/him) ( 623:SiliconRed 602:Gamezero05 381:Gamezero05 2732:WP:CRYBLP 2643:Aquillion 2566:The Times 2465:Aquillion 2461:extensive 1965:This edit 1752:tactfully 1677:reputable 1628:ValarianB 1529:ValarianB 1309:this edit 1132:WP:BEBOLD 911:WP:BLPVIO 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3079:Zaathras 3039:X-Editor 2904:Zaathras 2866:Zaathras 2862:brackets 2828:contribs 2793:WP:SYNTH 2736:Zaathras 2702:WP:SYNTH 2574:DailyDot 2390:, not a 2324:Zaathras 2292:X-Editor 2278:Zaathras 2222:X-Editor 2212:contribs 2186:X-Editor 2157:X-Editor 2143:contribs 2131:WP:UNDUE 2116:X-Editor 2104:contribs 2092:X-Editor 2081:contribs 2068:WP:UNDUE 2053:X-Editor 2039:Zaathras 2024:X-Editor 2008:Zaathras 1988:Zaathras 1974:Zaathras 1946:X-Editor 1924:Zaathras 1817:(he/him) 1763:(he/him) 1756:WP:RSPSS 1705:(he/him) 1693:WP:RSPSS 1604:Zaathras 1484:(he/him) 1371:St.nerol 1328:St.nerol 1307:I think 1295:St.nerol 1267:St.nerol 1143:(he/him) 1104:(he/him) 1086:X-Editor 1066:unsigned 1051:(he/him) 1024:Bro rick 1008:X-Editor 985:X-Editor 942:(he/him) 870:X-Editor 860:contribs 783:(he/him) 776:WP:UNDUE 737:(he/him) 700:(he/him) 609:St.nerol 581:X-Editor 551:X-Editor 514:X-Editor 510:WP:NPOVN 391:X-Editor 387:WP:NPOVN 366:X-Editor 348:X-Editor 313:X-Editor 279:X-Editor 243:X-Editor 234:contribs 222:unsigned 131:Zaathras 127:WP:DNFTT 3065:Endwise 2858:numbers 2706:WP:NPOV 2614:WP:NPOV 2517:WP:NPOV 2392:tabloid 1774:occur.? 1696:this'). 1044:WP:NPOV 39:archive 2797:WP:BLP 2704:, and 2694:WP:BLP 2635:WP:RSN 2590:WP:BLP 2586:at all 2578:WP:BLP 2570:WashPo 2568:, the 2521:WP:BLP 2442:WashPo 2355:WP:BLP 2314:WP:BLP 1970:WP:RSP 1942:WP:RSN 1938:WP:RSP 1885:WP:BLP 1455:Czello 1248:Kyohyi 1229:WP:BLP 1211:Kyohyi 1162:WP:BLP 1136:WP:RSN 931:biased 727:actual 2926:WP:RS 2789:WP:RS 2698:WP:RS 2576:. As 2572:, or 2513:WP:RS 2351:WP:RS 2310:WP:RS 2255:every 1871:Domiy 1840:Domiy 1796:Domiy 1779:Domiy 1738:Domiy 1671:bias. 1657:Domiy 1559:WP:RS 1401:WP:RS 1225:about 909:Read 476:talk 413:talk 336:talk 301:talk 266:talk 16:< 3097:talk 3083:talk 3069:talk 3043:talk 2997:talk 2982:talk 2968:talk 2951:talk 2934:talk 2908:talk 2889:talk 2870:talk 2846:talk 2824:talk 2808:talk 2758:talk 2740:talk 2718:talk 2684:talk 2669:talk 2647:talk 2598:talk 2549:talk 2533:talk 2519:and 2498:talk 2469:talk 2450:talk 2432:talk 2416:talk 2402:The 2353:and 2328:talk 2296:talk 2282:talk 2267:talk 2226:talk 2208:talk 2204:Elli 2190:talk 2175:talk 2161:talk 2139:talk 2135:Elli 2120:talk 2100:talk 2094:... 2077:talk 2057:talk 2028:talk 1978:talk 1950:talk 1928:talk 1897:talk 1875:talk 1863:not 1853:talk 1800:talk 1783:talk 1772:did 1742:talk 1685:NPOV 1661:talk 1632:talk 1608:talk 1582:talk 1567:talk 1549:talk 1533:talk 1470:talk 1438:talk 1417:talk 1390:talk 1375:talk 1361:talk 1332:talk 1318:talk 1299:talk 1285:talk 1271:talk 1252:talk 1237:talk 1215:talk 1201:talk 1183:talk 1156:BLP? 1117:talk 1090:talk 1074:talk 1028:talk 1012:talk 1001:The 989:talk 975:talk 956:talk 900:talk 874:talk 856:talk 852:Elli 830:talk 816:talk 766:talk 751:talk 717:talk 682:talk 666:talk 647:talk 627:talk 613:talk 585:talk 570:talk 555:talk 533:talk 518:talk 492:talk 457:talk 429:talk 395:talk 370:talk 352:talk 317:talk 283:talk 247:talk 230:talk 209:talk 198:Bias 184:talk 162:talk 135:talk 3099:) 2785:any 2728:say 2631:why 2626:can 2618:why 2269:) 2177:) 1899:) 1648:not 1584:) 1569:) 1519:to 1419:) 1363:) 1320:) 1287:) 1239:) 1185:) 1040:not 668:) 629:) 3085:) 3071:) 3045:) 2984:) 2970:) 2953:) 2936:) 2910:) 2891:) 2872:) 2848:) 2840:. 2830:) 2826:/ 2810:) 2791:, 2760:) 2742:) 2720:) 2712:" 2700:, 2686:) 2671:) 2649:) 2639:do 2600:) 2551:) 2535:) 2515:, 2500:) 2471:) 2452:) 2434:) 2418:) 2357:: 2330:) 2298:) 2284:) 2228:) 2214:) 2210:| 2202:. 2192:) 2163:) 2155:. 2145:) 2141:| 2133:. 2122:) 2106:) 2102:/ 2083:) 2079:/ 2059:) 2030:) 2022:. 1980:) 1972:. 1952:) 1930:) 1919:is 1887:. 1877:) 1855:) 1802:) 1785:) 1744:) 1663:) 1634:) 1610:) 1551:) 1535:) 1508:? 1472:) 1440:) 1392:) 1377:) 1334:) 1301:) 1273:) 1254:) 1217:) 1203:) 1168:. 1119:) 1092:) 1076:) 1030:) 1014:) 991:) 977:) 958:) 937:. 902:) 876:) 862:) 858:| 832:) 818:) 768:) 753:) 719:) 684:) 649:) 615:) 607:–– 587:) 572:) 557:) 535:) 520:) 512:. 494:) 459:) 431:) 397:) 389:. 372:) 354:) 319:) 285:) 274:\ 249:) 236:) 232:• 211:) 186:) 164:) 137:) 129:. 3081:( 3067:( 3041:( 2980:( 2966:( 2949:( 2932:( 2906:( 2887:( 2868:( 2844:( 2822:( 2806:( 2756:( 2738:( 2716:( 2682:( 2667:( 2645:( 2596:( 2547:( 2531:( 2496:( 2467:( 2448:( 2430:( 2414:( 2326:( 2294:( 2280:( 2224:( 2206:( 2188:( 2159:( 2137:( 2118:( 2098:( 2075:( 2055:( 2048:: 2044:@ 2041:: 2037:@ 2026:( 2017:: 2013:@ 2010:: 2006:@ 1976:( 1948:( 1926:( 1873:( 1851:( 1798:( 1781:( 1740:( 1732:. 1659:( 1630:( 1606:( 1547:( 1531:( 1468:( 1436:( 1388:( 1373:( 1330:( 1297:( 1269:( 1250:( 1213:( 1199:( 1115:( 1088:( 1072:( 1026:( 1010:( 987:( 973:( 954:( 898:( 872:( 854:( 844:: 840:@ 828:( 814:( 764:( 749:( 715:( 680:( 645:( 611:( 604:: 600:@ 583:( 568:( 553:( 547:: 543:@ 531:( 516:( 506:: 502:@ 490:( 455:( 427:( 393:( 383:: 379:@ 368:( 350:( 315:( 281:( 245:( 228:( 207:( 182:( 176:: 172:@ 160:( 133:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index