Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:10, 7 March 2023

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: 7 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

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:

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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 TikTok This article is within the scope of WikiProject TikTok, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of TikTok 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.TikTokWikipedia:WikiProject TikTokTemplate:WikiProject TikTokTikTok

Media mentions, page views, and other notices

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: D'Anne Witkowski (September 14, 2022). "Creep of the Week: Libs of TikTok". Out in Jersey. Retrieved September 17, 2022. Now, if you're old like me, you might be wondering why an account called Libs of TikTok is on Twitter and not, say, only TikTok. All I can tell you is that the world is a multifaceted digital hellscape. Misplaced Pages explains it better: "Libs of TikTok is a far-right Twitter account owned by former real estate worker Chaya Raichik. The account reposts content created by liberals, leftists, and LGBT people on TikTok and on other social media platforms, often with hostile, derogatory, or mocking commentary." 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

LOTT is not far- right

"Sentence that doesn't add any information"

@Korny O'Near: I find myself confused by this edit summary of yours. Obviously it does add information ­– that Libs of TikTok employs the aforementioned tactic. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. The sentence I removed reads, Libs of TikTok has used this tactic to avoid additional penalties from Twitter while still making an impact on a large online audience. Perhaps I shouldn't have deleted it - I was thinking "this tactic" meant deleting tweets that Twitter objected to, but I guess it means posting controversial tweets, with the full intent of deleting them soon afterwards, before Twitter (the company) can even get a chance to weigh in. Although, if the latter is the case, that's quite an incendiary charge to make - and should probably be attributed to Joan Donovan (who is the source of that assertion). Though Donovan seems to just say it's true of "disinformation sowers", not necessarily of Libs of TikTok. So maybe the sentence should be removed anyway, because it's a big charge resting on a flimsy basis. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Though Donovan seems to just say it's true of "disinformation sowers", not necessarily of Libs of TikTok. From the article (emphasis my own):

Donovan said quickly deleting problematic tweets is a common way for disinformation sowers to make an impact with a broad online audience but then incur a lesser penalty from Twitter. She noted that influencers such as Libs of TikTok play a sophisticated cat-and-mouse game with the social media companies, “paying close attention to the company’s twists and turns in their terms of service,” to purposefully dance around the rules.

Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The deleted sentence could be inferred from the rest of the paragraph. Because of the inference, maybe it seemed redundant? But it's not. Rewording might be an order, but the deletion seems like a mistake. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That sentence from the WaPo article again doesn't actually say that Libs of TikTok posts things with the intention of later deleting them - neither in Donovan's voice or in WaPo's own voice. There's a lot of kinda-sorta insinuation in that part of the article; and it seems to me that it would be better to err on the side of ignoring it, unless there's more proof. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

My interpretation of the bolded quote above is that she absolutely is saying that Libs of Tiktok uses that tactic, given that the entire section is about Libs of Tiktok; your alternative reading doesn't really make much sense in context. And that means it's important for our article to mention it. The quote above leaves out a bit of context from the preceding paragraph: As in April, Raichik deleted the offending tweet herself, before Twitter could do so.¶ Donovan said quickly deleting problematic tweets is a common way for disinformation sowers to make an impact with a broad online audience but then incur a lesser penalty from Twitter. Donovan's explanation only makes sense in context as a description of what Raichik did and why; there's no reasonable alternative reading. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think my alternative reading makes perfect sense: Joan Donovan is pointing out that there's circumstantial evidence that Libs of TikTok has posted tweets with the intent to delete them; but, given that there's no direct evidence for this, neither Donovan nor the WaPo will definitively say that this is the case. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I can see it but its a stretch... Aquillion appears to be much more actuate, there really is only one way you can interpret that statement unless you start making an effort to make alternative interpretations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with Aquillion and HEB here; a neutral reading of the sentence is attributing the behavior. As ever though, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I actually think the sentence could fit the source better. The deleted sentence implied 100% certainty about Raichik's motivations. Of course that's never possible. Instead, the researcher points to specific examples of a practice LoTT does, and says it's a common for similar orgs. Here's my suggested edit:

According to Joan Donovan, research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Libs of TikTok's practice of deleting content before a platform takes action is a common tactic for digital actors spreading disinformation.

Without the mention of LoTT, it's a nonsequiter. I deleted the harvard link for brevity's sake, plus it unfairly makes Donovan look pompous. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That looks okay to me. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too - it's a reasonable compromise. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"Critics of Black Lives Matter" category

Well, we already talked about it before, but I guess we have to talk about it again, per this revert. WP:NONDEF states, The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. In what way does "critic of Black Lives Matter" serve as a defining characteristic of Libs of TikTok? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You say "we already" talked about it before, but it was a brief conversation between yourself and @Shibbolethink: I don't see any indication that there was a consensus to remove the category. Yet you did that today anyway. I happen to also believe the category is appropriate based on Raichik's views of BLM. There's ample evidence of Ms. Raichik's feelings about BLM. Wes sideman (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. That first link is the one already cited in the article, which mentions the tweet where LoTT says that BLM protests have been more violent than the January 6 one. The second is a tweet by LoTT that reads, in full, A school in DC forced kindergarteners to march around with BLM signs and chant “Black Lives Matter”. The third is an article about some agitated women who yelled "black lives matter" at an unmasked black man; LoTT referred to it as More mask madness. I'm not seeing any actual criticism here, let alone enough to justify calling it a "defining characteristic". Korny O'Near (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation is noted, but I think it's an isolated opinion. I don't share it. Wes sideman (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I should note again that opinions don't even really matter here, because every category listed has to be one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wes sideman:, the WaPo source doesn't say that LoTT has criticized BLM per say. It just said she thought "BLM protests" were more violent than Jan. 6. I'm not opposed tho the inclusion of the category in principle because it's likely true and we know LoTT has been critical of many racial justice related things. But, I would like to see more RS support for the label; otherwise, it would be OR. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 21:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the inclusion of the category either. Wes sideman (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. For clarity, I am opposed to it until there is better sourcing supporting the category. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 02:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"The account spreads false claims and hateful commentary"

Wes sideman decided to move up the sentence The account spreads false claims and hateful commentary, especially relating to medical care of transgender children. so that it's now the 2nd sentence in the intro. Whatever the merits of this move (I think it's ridiculous), it is useful in that it at least sheds a spotlight on this sentence, which has been in the intro for a long time. Looking at the sentence and its sourcing, I think it's clear that it should be removed entirely.

Let's specify what this sentence implies:

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

These are quite bold claims - so you would expect airtight references to support them. The sources provided are this Slate article, this PinkNews article, and this Boston Herald article. Interestingly, none of these sources back up these statements. The false claims cited here add up to a single false claim - that Boston Children's Hospital performs hysterectomies on children. And the word "hate" shows up in just a single one of these sources: the Slate article - which doesn't say that the commentary is hateful, just that the woman who runs the account is.

Now, I'm sure you could find citations for five more false claims and add them to the references for that sentence. But that would not be enough evidence either. In the article about, say, The New York Times, you could easily find 50 references for false statements that have been made in the newspaper over the years. Would that be enough to justify a sentence like "The New York Times spreads false claims"? No - you would need to find reliable sources directly stating that the New York Times has a pattern of making false claims. It's the same thing here: you need to find sources directly backing up these serious charges against Libs of TikTok. As far as I know, there's only one source currently cited in the whole article that more or less backs it up: this CBC article, and specifically this sentence: The accounts often target and spread disinformation about the LGBTQ community. Is that enough to justify the sentence in the intro? I don't think so. (And the article says nothing about child surgery and the like - it seems mostly concerned with the word "groomer".)

As for "hateful commentary", there seems to be even less evidence for that: this sentence is the one place in the article where this charge is made directly in wikivoice. The sources are simply lacking to make these assertions. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

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

I don't think most of the coverage of LoTT has been about false information, but even if that were true, it wouldn't be the sort of evidence we could use in this article - it's original research. What are the actual references saying that LoTT spreads false claims - not just "has spread false claims in the past", but does so on a regular basis? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best infobox template for this page?

Any thoughts on the right infobox template to use for this page? Among the options that have been cycled through recently are Infobox person, Infobox website and Infobox organization. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For me, Korny, that wouldn't change anything. I suspect many of the great and good have people who help manage their social media presences. But I continue thinking it is more akin to a "person" than, say, NJGov, which represents an office, or PeggyOlson, which is an explicit exercise in writing from the perspective of a fictional character. There is no indication that LoTT is anything other than the personal views of Chaya Raichik. But as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That's some unusual logic. No, it is reality. We don't traffick in alternative realities here, this isn't the Fox News desk. Zaathras (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. Wes sideman (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

'Comment with some background information that Korny has omitted. Korny changed the infobox yesterday to website because "website" doesn't have a field similar to "movement", which person did have. The field contained Far-right politics, anti-LGBT, and in line with all of their edits to this article (see above section), Korny wished to see that removed from the infobox. Organization, which is what I replaced "website" with, seems to be sufficient. Wes sideman (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2023 (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
• C-Class Gender studies articles
• Low-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Articles created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride 2022