This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 6 May 2018 by reviewer Legacypac (talk · contribs). Companies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Internet Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sufficent scale of business and sources provided to be notable. Copyvio check passed on acceptance. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, My Name is Shaima, I'm paid by Kaoru Nakano for my contributions to ByteDance.

I'd like to suggest some changes and updates to this article.

Here is my version of the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfazy (talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an overall improvement and am happy to implement this change, however, since it's so substantial I'd prefer to wait a week to see if there are any objections. If this hasn't been addressed by another editor in a week, and assuming no one has objected to it, feel free to ping me and I'll implement it. Thanks for disclosing your affiliation. Chetsford (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There are several items which should either be clarified or not included:

Regards,  Spintendo  16:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chetsford and Spintendo, Thanks for your fast reply. As Checstford said I was seeking some improvements and was not trying to promote the company or its products you can find my edits or updates here which was reverted by an editor who told me that I have to follow {{request edit}} template process so, Am I required to correct all of these mistakes which appears on the page. however, I'd be happy to solve such mistakes and help in cleaning up the page and make it promotional free. I was just asking to approve my edits. Thanks Sfazy (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to Spintendo on this request moving forward. Chetsford (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some copyedits to the main article, removing the problematic items listed in my feedback. If the COI editor wishes to use the article now as the basis of the changes they wish to make, they may do so here on the talk page by inserting the new draft version containing their requested changes (along with a new {{request edit}} template) below this post. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  09:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Information to be updated: Replace "ByteDance (Chinese: 字节跳动; pinyin: Zìjié Tiàodòng) or Beijing ByteDance Technology Co Ltd. is a Chinese Internet technology company operating several machine learning-enabled content platforms, headquartered in Beijing." with "ByteDance Ltd. (Chinese: 字节跳动; pinyin: Zìjié Tiàodòng) is an Internet technology company operating several machine learning-enabled content platforms, headquartered in Beijing."
• Explanation of issue: Company name is "ByteDance" not Beijing ByteDance Technology Co Ltd. Very clear in the first source from company about page. Beijing is where the company based but not it's name.
• References: ^[1][2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfazy (talk • contribs) 22:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Edit request implemented  

• The COI editor is kindly reminded of the need to sign all talk page posts using four tildes.

Regards,  Spintendo  01:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I work for ByteDance and would like to suggest a few changes to this article.

• Infobox: Please remove the name "Fuping Zhang." as he is no longer serving in this role. (In any case, the party committee secretary is not a "key person" in the company and doesn't belong in the infobox.) According to Template:Infobox company, the infobox should not list roles below chief officer level if they are not notable. Fuping Zhang is a vice president, which is below chief officer level, and he is not notable in his own right. [Clarified request. JatBD (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)][reply]
• Third paragraph of the intro section: Please change from "the video-sharing social networking service Douyin (TikTok)" to "the video-sharing social networking services Douyin and TikTok." This is to reflect that these are two distinct platforms, rather than two different names for the same platform.
• Third paragraph of "Toutiao" section: Update from "In 2017, the alerts helped find 3573 missing persons" to: "As of June 2020, the alerts have helped find 13,116 missing persons, including 5,128 seniors, 1,179 teenagers and 6,809 adults."^[1]
• "List of Overseas Products": The links for the names Lark, Helo and BaBe all point to irrelevant content on Wikipedia and should be removed.

Thank you! JatBD (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JatBD,

Happy to help with this.

• Do you have a source for Zhang no longer being in the position? I'm not going to make a decision about the value of the role in the infobox, but we should definitely fix incorrect information
• Douyin currently redirects to TikTok. Can you provide a source that explains the distinction? You may want to discuss that further on Talk:TikTok#Should_we_make_Douyin_a_separate_page. I think we should leave as is until a decision is made. (Edited as per the below)  Implemented
• I'll do that - looks correct Implemented
• Those should all be unlinked - I'll do that too Implemented

--FeldBum (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @JatBD:  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 17:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FeldBum: Thanks for taking the time to look at this!

1. I don't have a source at the moment for Fuping Zhang's change in role. However, I read in the guidelines for Infobox company: "do not list roles below chief officer level if they are not notable." It seems to me that since Fuping Zhang is not notable and his role is below chief officer level, he should be removed from the infobox.
2. As for referring to Douyin and TikTok as two apps rather than one app, here is an analysis from Gartner that delineates some of the differences between the two platforms. I've seen the discussion at Talk:TikTok that you mentioned, and I understand that this is a thorny question and that consensus has yet to be reached there. But even if you take the position that there is not enough distinguishing the two platforms to justify creating a separate article for Douyin (a position that I believe is misguided), it is a plain fact that they are two similar yet separate apps and not just two names for the same entity.

Thanks again, JatBD (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks the reply JatBD. How about "Douyin, the precursor to TikTok" or "Douyin, the Chinese-specific precursor to TikTok"?

I think that separates out the two without too much extraneous language and without wading into the other mess of separating out pages. --FeldBum (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FeldBum: Could we use "equivalent" instead of "precursor" (since "precursor" implies incorrectly that Douyin is no longer active)? As in: "TikTok and its China-specific equivalent Douyin." JatBD (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How's "counterpart," JatBD? Maybe "Douyin, the Chinese-specific counterpart to TikTok" --FeldBum (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FeldBum: Yes, "counterpart" is fine. But it should still refer to TikTok and Douyin to reflect that these are two apps, no matter how similar they may be to each other. (As Reuters explains here: "TikTok is functionally and technically similar to ByteDance-owned Douyin, which is available only in China." And also: "TikTok uses recommendation algorithms that are independent from Douyin.") So if we say that ByteDance developed "Douyin, the Chinese-specific counterpart to TikTok," that leaves out the fact that ByteDance developed TikTok itself as well.

Separately, can you also please make the edit to remove Fuping Zhang from the infobox? As I wrote above, his role in the company was below chief officer level, so he should not be included in the infobox, as per the infobox guidelines. Thanks, JatBD (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick search, looks like Zhang, as well as heading the company's internal party committee, is also the company's vice president since 2017.[1] Is this incorrect / outdated? {{Infobox company}} is generally focused towards Western company structures, but at a glance Zhang's role seems to be akin to a top executive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ProcrastinatingReader. Fuping Zhang is one of many vice presidents at ByteDance. The position of vice president in Chinese companies is similar to the position of vice president in Western companies, in the sense that it is an important role, but still below chief officer level in the corporate hierarchy. According to Template:Infobox company, the infobox should not list roles below chief officer level if they are not notable. So it should follow that Fuping Zhang should not be included in the infobox, while the other four names, which are all at the chief officer level, should remain. Thank you, JatBD (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave Zhang for now. JatBD, you might want to put up for a vote. I think this prposed edit highlights the difference between the two apps: "ByteDance is the developer of the video-sharing social networking services and apps TikTok and Douyin, the Chinese-specific counterpart to TikTok." --FeldBum (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FeldBum: The proposed edit works from my perspective. Can you please make the edit, since I'm avoiding editing the article directly due to my COI? JatBD (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Made. Closing the request. --FeldBum (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I work for ByteDance and am requesting that the citation that ByteDance owns 10-15% of the Houston Astros be removed as it is not correct. ByteDance does not have any type of ownership at all in the Houston Astros. Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Þjarkur: Thanks! But the IP editor put the hoax content right back. Would it be possible to protect the article from this kind of vandalism? Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​You are free to revert vandalism on WP:COI articles. Let's see if this repeats itself one more time, if so then I'd request protection. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not yet reflect the fact that Kevin Mayer is no longer the COO of ByteDance. (Sources: New York Times, Business Insider)

Please make the following changes:

1. Infobox: Remove Mayer's name from "Key people" and add Roland Cloutier (Global Chief Security Officer)^[1] and Erich Andersen (Global General Counsel)^[2]
2. Lead section, fifth paragraph: Change the second sentence to "Mayer served as the CEO of TikTok and the COO of ByteDance from 1 June 2020 until announcing his resignation on 27 August 2020."

Thank you, JatBD (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again JatBD, happy to help again. Removing Mayer and adding the new line seem straightforward, so I'll do those. Do you see precedent for Global Chief Security Officer and Global General Counsel being added to Key people? --FeldBum (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writing as "From June 2020 to his resignation 26 August 2020." Both articles are published on the 27th but say Mayer left on Wednesday, which is the 26th. Do you have a source that says 27th? --FeldBum (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FeldBum. According to Template:Infobox company, the "Key people" field may list roles at the "chief officer" level - and both CSO and GC are chief officer titles (see Corporate title). As for precedent, a quick search brings up lots of examples, including Mandiant and Chronicle Security for CSO and IRIS Distribution and Sendo for GC. Thanks, JatBD (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me JatBD; just wanted to see some precedent. Added now. --FeldBum (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ByteDance Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose restructuring the layout of this article in order to fix the current MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:LEAD issues. I believe that doing this will improve the way the article's content is organized and make it easier to read. The two main things my proposed version accomplishes are: integrating most of the current overly long lead's content into the body of the article; and reorganizing most of the body into sections on History (with multiple chronological subsections), Technology, Leadership, Finances and Funding.

Please see User:JatBD/ByteDance revised layout for my proposal.

I want to stress that I am not at this stage proposing to add or remove any significant content, just to reorganize the content to improve the layout. The only exceptions are minor syntax changes in cases where the layout change necessitates it, and removing the "List of overseas products" subsection, which is unsourced and mostly covered in other parts of the article's body.

Pinging FeldBum: You've been very helpful here in the past and I hope you can spare a few minutes to take a look at this proposal, which I think is sensible. Thank you, JatBD (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JatBD

I think this new template overall looks good, but I don't think we can include everything under History, especially Controversy. While I normally hate lists of products, I think it does make sense to highlight product line here too, at least a little. If you don't mind, I can make some edits to your draft.

I'll also wait to hear what other editors think.

--FeldBum (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FeldBum, thanks for responding. It would be great if you could implement this proposal, with the changes you have in mind incorporated, directly into the article. Judging by how long the proposal has sat here without attracting any responses, it appears that no other editors have strong opinions about it.

Regarding the Controversy section, I think my proposal is in line with WP:CSECTION, adopting the "integration" approach recommended there. And regarding the list of products, this may be a moot point, since Amigao already removed it, citing WP:NOTCATALOG.

I hope all that makes sense, and I appreciate your continued dedication to improving this article. Thanks, JatBD (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I come back to this discussion a week later, I see some of my MOS:LAYOUT concerns have been resolved by the recent efforts of Amigao, who helpfully shortened the lead section and created new Leadership, Funding and Partnerships sections.

However, two glaring layout problems remain:

1. There should be a chronologically organized "History" section. Currently, the content relating to the history of ByteDance is scattered throughout the article, mostly in the Products and Reception sections. This is a counterintuitive and confusing way to present the company's history, and the reader would be much better served following the model used at Twitter#History, which I've attempted to implement at User:JatBD/ByteDance revised layout.
2. Earlier, I raised the issue of WP:CSECTION as it pertains to the section formerly called "Controversy," which was recently changed to "Reception" by Amigao. I had suggested that the contents of the Controversy section be integrated into a History section with the other content from the lead and Products sections. Instead, Amigao chose to rename the section heading "Reception." However, I don't think that is a viable solution, as a "Reception" section is meant to be "dedicated to positive and negative assessments of the topic" (per WP:CSECTION), whereas here, there are no assessments at all - only "controversial" events in ByteDance's history. So I would still insist that this section should be integrated chronologically into a neutral History section.

I've again updated my proposed revised layout at User:JatBD/ByteDance revised layout to match the content of the current version. I'm not proposing to change or remove any content, just to improve the layout. I've already pinged Amigao, whom I encourage to join the discussion here, and not just in edit summaries. I'll also ping FeldBum and a few other editors who have been helpful here in the past: Þjarkur, ProcrastinatingReader, DarthFlappy, Chetsford. Hopefully one or more of you will have a constructive opinion on this. Thank you, JatBD (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking only at layout (not content), the revised proposed layout is better inline with most company pages should be. History should always be the first part. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which layout for the ByteDance article is best?

• Option 1: The current layout, which: features a 4-paragraph lead section; presents the company's history nonlinearly across the lead and several topic sections (none of which is a History section); and attempts to resolve WP:CSECTION concerns by renaming the Controversy section to "Reception"
• Option 2: The proposed layout, which: features a shorter lead section; presents most of the company's history in a History section with chronologically ordered subsections; and attempts to resolve WP:CSECTION concerns by integrating the content chronologically into the History section
• Option 3: A different layout that has not yet been proposed

See the previous discussion at Talk:ByteDance#Fixing MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:LEAD issues. JatBD (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 as proposer. The proposed layout conforms better to MOS:LEADLENGTH, MOS:LAYOUT and WP:CSECTION. Articles about companies should always have a well-organized History section, and the model of chronological subsections (as used effectively at Twitter#History) is great for ease of reading. JatBD (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 I think it would be best to find some middle ground between the two. I like having a history section, but feel your version dominates the article too much. It would be better to organise through themes a bit more (i.e. keep the products and reception sections). It is a terrible example of WP:proseline in both versions and I feel that is a more pressing issue than the layout (and combining some of the paragraphs into themes would help in that regard). Aircorn (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Aircorn's option 3. I agree that a history section is good for something like this, but it should not be overwhelming. Also agree with the "proseline" observation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• +1 for option Aircorn. – SJ + 17:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 Having the history section is good but from the proposed layout, its dominating the article. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 Status quo is fine. ~ HAL333 16:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 working incrementally towards Option 2 stopping once we've gone far enough and are no longer improving things. This is compatible with Aircorn's proposal but we get to review along the way and have the options to change direction or stop early. ~Kvng (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2. As mentioned by others, this option conforms to MOS:LEADLENGTH, MOS:LAYOUT and WP:CSECTION. The proposed history section seems better organized and is easier to read as the chronological format is logical and easier to follow. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2. It is much cleaner and I am a proponent of shorter intro sections. Jaxarnolds (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn, SMcCandlish, Sj, and BristolTreeHouse: This is some great feedback, especially the point about WP:PROSELINE, which I completely agree with. Given the differing perspectives, I've gone ahead and taken Aircorn's advice and created User:JatBD/ByteDance - Option 3, which keeps the basic structure of the proposed History section but combines paragraphs thematically within the chronological subsections. I've also kept a Products section to avoid an overly dominant History section, but unlike the current Products section, the proposed Products section focuses on describing the products themselves rather than the history of the products, which should be in the History section. This should bring this option to life for everyone. I'm also in favor of expanding the prose across the board in this article, but I don't want to bite off more than I can chew at this stage, and I think improving the layout in this more modest way will make it easier for editors to improve the prose afterwards.

I encourage you to edit my Option 3 userspace draft directly and freely, as I'm eager to reach a consensus here. JatBD (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I would actually drop the 20xx–20xx intermediary headings, as these spans are arbitrary and it just makes the ToC longer for no particular benefit. Otherwise, I'd be happy with this version.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Thanks, that makes sense. I removed the "20xx" headings per your advice, and also added a new "Background and founding" subsection as the first History subsection, because that stuck out as a glaring omission. My concern now is that the RfC seems to have gone stale at this point. If no other editor comments here meaningfully over the next week or so, do you think it would be appropriate to implement this version boldly? JatBD (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not, as long as you take account of the fact that options 2 and 3 had about equal support. That's a little bit of why I suggested the revision I did, but there might be more to do to make your option 3 approach diverge not too strongly from option 2. Regardless, I would think (fingers crossed) that editors would accept a generally improved version as the new base on which to work even if it didn't perfectly suit their preferences. There's a very similar series of discussions happening at Talk:Goths, stuck at exactly the same part of the process: we've talked about what changes to make and someone actually needs to draft them into a new version of the article, and put that up, and see if it sticks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Be bold! – SJ + 12:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC) The TOC is still too long, however, and the changes should be applied in stages. – SJ + 15:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish and Sj: Thanks for the encouragement! Would either of you mind implementing this version, per consensus, as I'd prefer to refrain from extensive direct edits due to my COI. Regarding SMcCandlish's point about Option 2 vs. Option 3, my feeling is that those who voted Option 2 (myself included!) would be equally happy with Option 3, and their votes were more in opposition to the status quo of Option 1. JatBD (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely, start by updating the corporate and products sections. Products should cover the same products that are in the infobox; and given the leadership/parthersips/financing/funding can all be under Corporate + don't need separate sections. I would make these changes first, then reorganize other things into a history section w/ no subsections; then try adding subsections there. (One for acquisitions + new products, one for regulation). – SJ + 15:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sj: While I understand your reasoning in calling for some of these changes, this is veering quite far from the consensus that was reached in the RfC just now. Most participants in the RfC called for a version of the article that: has a shorter lead; has a body that opens with a comprehensive History section with subsections; and integrates the Controversy/Reception section into the History section.

I'm also not clear on why the changes should be made in stages. If there is consensus, then the consensus should be implemented. SMcCandlish, do you have any comment on this? JatBD (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not so far, I hope. Staging: I just meant in a series of edits rather than all at once. (That makes it easier to follow.) I applied most of the text from your draft in a way that doesn't leave a lopsided table of contents; curious what you think. – SJ + 02:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to edit that way, too. Anyway, it looks better to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to propose a few more changes to this article.

1. Infobox
   • In the "Type" field, please remove the recently added "partially state-owned" (and similarly remove from the lead sentence of the article). This apparently refers to recent news that a Chinese government fund took a small 1% stake in a domestic operating unit of ByteDance. For all the news coverage this garnered, this certainly doesn't suddenly make ByteDance's company type "partially state-owned," which implies a much more significant government role than actually exists. And the same goes for the lead sentence - "partially state-owned" is a terribly misleading primary descriptor for ByteDance and should be removed.
   • In the Key people field, add "Kelly Zhang, CEO of ByteDance China^[1]" and "Lidong Zhang, Chairman of ByteDance China^[1]"
2. Lead section
   • In the first paragraph, change "It was founded by Zhang Yiming in 2012" to: It was founded by Zhang Yiming, Liang Rubo and a team of others in 2012.^[2]
   • In the third paragraph, update the first sentence to: As of June 2021, ByteDance had 1.9 billion monthly active users across all of its content platforms.^[3]
3. History
   • The second subsection's current title ("First apps: Neihan Duanzi and TouTiao") is somewhat cumbersome. It could be improved by changing the title to "First apps in China." This title also serves as an appropriate complement to the title of the following subsection: "Expansion into new markets."
4. Corporate affairs
   • In the Leadership subsection, add the following new paragraph: In March 2020, ByteDance announced that Kelly Zhang was named CEO of ByteDance China, the company's division responsible for the development of its business in China, and Lidong Zhang was named the division's Chairman.^[1][4]
   • In the Partnerships subsection, change "ByteDance has a strategic partnership" to "ByteDance's China business has a strategic partnership" to be more precise.
   • Also in the Partnerships subsection, remove the second part of the sentence ("and joint ventures with a state-run publisher in Beijing and media firm in Shanghai"). It was later reported in Reuters that the joint venture was never in operation and was disbanded in January 2021, meaning that the original plans to form a joint venture that never amounted to anything on the ground are not noteworthy enough to mention here in an encyclopedia article.
5. Reception and regulation - change section title to just Regulation, since this section isn't about the company's "reception" at all, just regulation.

Pinging Sj and SMcCandlish, who were so helpful in the last discussion I initiated a few months ago. Thanks! JatBD (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Too much bloat. Quetstar (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the key people edit, the founders correction, the shorter first apps heading, clarification of the strategic partnership sentence. The state stuff is very debatable, and we should have the debate. New additional verbiage, outside the infobox, about heads of units like ByteDance China is probably not necessary. The reception and regulation heading change would be okay, though it may be better to add reception information. Either way, yes, the heading should agree with the content under it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Quetstar (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish and Quetstar: Happy to see that both of you agree with most of my request! Would one of you mind implementing the changes? I'm avoiding most direct edits to the article due to my COI.

I can make some time for it today or tomorrow probably, but am in the middle of resolving technical issues on my main PC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your hesitation to remove "partially state-owned" without a more thorough discussion, to me this seems like a no-brainer. The broadest definitions of a "state-owned enterprise" put the qualifying level of government ownership at ten percent to be considered an SOE; it would be ludicrous to consider ByteDance a state-owned enterprise due to state ownership of 1% of a subsidiary of ByteDance - not the parent company in any case. In addition, and critically for the purpose of the Wikipedia article, no reliable sources that I've found characterize ByteDance as "state-owned" or "partially state-owned," making this characterization on Wikipedia original research. Thanks, JatBD (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree, was just seeking further input. I'm not sure how watchlisted this page is though or whether there will be much response.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given lack of objection, but a clear indication of WP:OR being in the article, I've removed the claim that ByteDance is partially state-owned. ByteDance China appears to be very, very partially state owned, and the article already covers the news-reported "issue", and that is probably sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, SMcCandlish. Any chance you've got the time to implement this now? A substantial amount of time has passed without any expressed objections from other editors. Thanks, JatBD (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, along with some citation- and date-formatting cleanup.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Thanks! I noticed two small items that may have slipped through the cracks, though. First, updating the sentence about ByteDance's total active users. (Currently the figure is as of November 2018 and my proposed figure is as of June 2021.) Second, removing the half-sentence about the "joint ventures with a state-run publisher in Beijing and media firm in Shanghai" since the venture never ended up happening in practice and thus doesn't warrant mention here. Thanks again, JatBD (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. However, I have some concern that removing the announced joint-venture (and the 2 sources for it) weakens the point of the passage. It might be better to add (with your new source) that this venture didn't actually launch. I'll leave that to the editorial discretion of others.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I also cleaned up the infobox.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Thanks. I see that another editor took you up on your suggestion and expanded the part about the joint ventures - which is fine. I would, however, strongly encourage the addition of an important caveat to the second sentence (my addition in bold): "In 2021, ByteDance announced that its partnership with Shanghai Dongfang had never been in operation and was disbanded." Thanks, JatBD (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. That does agree with the source.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:59, 30 September

In light of Liang Rubo transition to CEO, I'd like to propose updating and expanding the first paragraph of ByteDance § Leadership as follows:

Zhang Yiming served as ByteDance's chairman and CEO from its founding in 2012 until 2021, when his ByteDance co-founder, longtime friend and former college roommate Liang Rubo took over as CEO.^[1][2][3]

Zhang and Liang first met as roommates at Nankai University in 2002. Liang's early career was spent as an engineer for an electronics company, while Zhang worked for Chinese startups. In 2009, they began pursuing entrepreneurial projects together, including founding the real estate app Jiujiufang in China. They developed ByteDance's first flagship app, the news aggregator app Jinri Toutiao, in 2012. Liang led the development of some of the company's R&D efforts for other key products, including the short-video app Douyin and the office collaboration platform Lark. He took on a management role at ByteDance in 2019, when he became the global head of human resources.^[4]

Pinging SMcCandlish - thanks in advance! JatBD (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no section called that (I see a Management one); WP doesn't use "served as"; we don't need to stack up 3 citations for simple leadership-change news; and I'm skeptical all this discussion of friends and roommates and so on belongs in that section or probably in the article, though if a compressed version of it did, it would be in History.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did update the basic management fact, with the Reuters source.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether the content in the Controversies section would be better suited as part of the "996 working hour system" article rather than here, since the RS have portrayed the incident as a reflection on Chinese tech work culture in general and not a reflection on ByteDance specifically. I'd love to hear what other editors think about this, as I do work for ByteDance and I want to make sure my thinking is correct here despite my conflict of interest.

SMcCandlish, do you have an opinion on this? Regardless, I think all can agree that having a "Controversies" section (again!) is not ideal, per WP:CSECTION. Thanks, JatBD (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I lean toward agreeing that it should merge out to the 996 article, but there may be other source material that focuses more on BD. CSECTION is correct that a section just called "Controversies" is probably a poor idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I haven't found other RS that refer to ByteDance specifically when describing the "takeaway" from the incident, though I would encourage you or other editors to double check this. If no one else objects, would you mind performing the proposed WP:Section move? Thanks again, JatBD (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found: a CNBC article from May 2021 reporting that some workers were turned off by the "996" work culture at ByteDance[2]. But then in November 2021, ByteDance moved away from 996 and mandated shorter working hours[3]. So I agree it seems misleading to highlight this as ByteDance-specific controversy. Stonkaments (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge done [4].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Thanks! JatBD (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JayHTCVPN (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by JayHTCVPN (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 1namesake1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 1namesake1 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CapCut 1.47.12.10 (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have simplified many paragraphs where the content is better covered in linked articles. This reduces the chance that information diverges. Mass surveillance in China is not supported at least not by the sources so far. There was an edit that mentioned "political dissidents" but I cannot find any RS for it in the context of the tracking incident of Cristina Criddle and Emily Baker-White. CurryCity (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No source was provided for adding it back into the article again. CurryCity (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amigao, provide a source without the ASPI report saying ByteDance works with CCP to censor Xinjiang topics. CurryCity (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few more cites for that and changed the wording to "Chinese government" since it is subject to state entities such as CAC and MSS. Semantics to some, perhaps. Amigao (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only ASPI accuses the company directly of collaboration. CurryCity (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

could someone help to make a PT-BR version of this article? GustavoBEPI wiki (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I miss the topic above, it has been started end of 2021. I'm no expert, so from my point of view a small explanation is helpful and appreciated. KR, Wikisympathisant (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]