Talk:2023 Target Pride Month merchandise backlash

Bomb threats
Bomb threats from who? The people against the pride merchandise or individuals within the LGBTQ+ community? It's a little unclear. Traptor12 (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Edits
I'm not sure what @Raladic is referring to in claiming this has been previously discussed.

1) It is undisputed that "tuck-friendly" swimwear was sold and advertised, just not for children. That is a key element in the controversy.

2) It was reported by the Washington Post that the bomb threats came from an individual who claimed Target had "betrayed the LGBT community". This is supported by the existing source. While the threats did not materialize, there is no evidence they were a hoax either.

3) 7 Republican attorneys general did, in fact, write a letter to the CEO of Target warning that the displays could run afoul of their states' obscenity and child protection laws.

Is there any objection to any of this information being added to the article? agomulka (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, the fact that the controversy began with outrage from social media users and consumers is beyond dispute. I'm not sure why this was removed. agomulka (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) the controversy was because some people claimed that these swim suits were advertised to children, which was thoroughly debunked, as is stated in the article already and cited to the associated press.
 * 2) This was a WP:CLAIM and we do not publish WP:speculation on Wikipedia. As such, we cautiously reported what transpired, but stay away from WP:POV issues on unsubstantiated claims. Since no new information has surfaced about it since and no actual items were found, it is accurate that it was a hoax.
 * 3) No objection to adding this new information about the letter that isn’t already in the article. Raladic (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) The statement that this was the only reason for the controversy is a CLAIM/SPECULATION. People had other reasons for objecting. You may wish to reduce the controversy to debunked claims, but plenty of people objected to the displays who were well-aware they were not marketed to children.
 * 2) The reporting on the threats said that the message indicated that the sender believed Target had betrayed the LGBT community. We are not making any statement on who the sender was or what motivated them, but that is what the threatening messages said. This is not a claim. The Washington Post reported it as fact.
 * 3) Ok. agomulka (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Many people objected to the sale of tuck-friendly swimwear for adults. agomulka (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just find it very striking that we have quotes from HRC, SPLC, and numerous Democratic Party politicians condemning the boycott, but not a single quote or statement from anyone who supported it. agomulka (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) We do not publish Original research - the sources, such as vox were very clear the controversy was centered on the false claim they were sold to children: Much of the controversy appeared to center around misinformation that Target was selling “tuck-friendly” bathing suits for kids. As the Associated Press points out, they were only available in adult sizes.. That was the whole point that sparked the controversy as cited.
 * 2) And another source said it was a hoax, so we do not just blindly republish every word if it is questionable and stick to what was unquestionable fact, that false (hoax) threats were made. They could just as well have come from someone pretending to support or not support the boycott, and because that is unknown and the police never found or published more evidence in either side, we stay neutral per our WP:NPOV policy. Raladic (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is anything but neutral. It's a propaganda piece, and part of the reason Wikipedia has a perception of bias. Every source quoted skews far left, and it's full of quotes from people condemning the boycott, but not a single source or link from any of the supporters in their own words. agomulka (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A hoax implies that the threat was made without any intention of being carried out. An investigation is needed to determine this. It's at least hypothetically possible someone sincerely made the threats, but was unable to carry them out. We have no evidence that they were a hoax. agomulka (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)