User talk:Someone123454321

June 2025

Hello, I'm PEPSI697. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Megalia, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 07:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SilverStar54. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Megalia seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. After checking your edit history, I've noticed that you've been making a series of edits to pages concerning women and feminism in South Korea. Although it's unfortunately within your rights to be anti-feminist, Wikipedia is not the place to try to spread those views. Removing unsourced material is fine; removing sourced material, adding material based on flimsy sources, or changing the entire meaning of a sentence without providing new sources (as you did on Women in South Korea), is not acceptable. SilverStar54 (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. On the editing a sentence on women in Korea, I just rolled it back to how it used to be before someone has edited the sentence. If you see the Korean Wikipedia, the English one has the exact same sentences except for that one. Also, legal rights, learning rights, and medical rights were all sources below as women having the same legal rights as men, having higher university enrollment rate than men, and placing high on health compared to men. Someone123454321 (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Just because something exists on the Korean Wikipedia, does not make it appropriate for use here. The Korean Wikipedia's smaller community actually means that their article quality is somewhat worse than ours. We have stricter standards that we enforce. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that I am deeply sorry for the inconveniences that I caused. One of my superiors back in military used slangs originated from Megalia which got me to know this site. She really put me through hard times, so I have a biased on Megalia, as well as feminism in Korea in general. I am sorry for the inconveniences again and I won't be editing on Megalia again. I thought my edits were getting a little better on the last edit than from the beginning, but I guess it was my own thought.The word Lamented was just what the translator has decided on, and it would probably be criticized if it's translated the other way. When my friend told me some of the writings on Megalia in English media were emphasized, I was personally grossed out cause of my experience. I know many people around me who went through hard times because of the users of that site, particularly in military and from University 선배s who were a jerk, and think there js a reason why it's so vastly hated throughout thr country.I remember you saying that some of the wordings here were what you didn't like. I realized that there was a lot of emphasize on this and less controversy compared to namuwiki(although this one is kind of bailed the other way around) or Korean wikipedia too. Since I don't obviously seem to have the ability to edit, would you take interest in editing these stuff? It's just my hope, so you don't have to do it. I am deeply sorry for the last time. Someone123454321 (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, thank you for apologizing. I appreciate that you were genuinely trying to help and were listening to feedback. Sorry if I came off as harsh.

However, this is one of the harshest topics in the world at the moment; the world is watching South Korea's gender conflict, and South Koreans are tearing themselves apart over it.

I'll consider working more on this article, but I hope you now realize how much work that requires. Editing Wikipedia is difficult, especially for topics this serious and contentious.

You're always welcome to return to editing Wikipedia, but I advise you to pick topics that are less difficult to work on so you can focus on learning how to be a better editor. Edit articles on topics that you enjoy. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding onto these concerns. See the talk thread at Talk:Megalia#POV. Please please please slow down. For others reading, I'm having a hard time trusting this user because of obvious POV, Wikipedia policy violations, and style issues. And they insist on editing on some of the most controversial topics in South Korea at the moment, despite these obvious issues. It's becoming exhausting having to look over basically every one of their edits when they're making numerous errors and have obvious opinions that they're trying to reflect in these articles. Editing Wikipedia is already hard enough without needing to do this. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

It seems to me you do not understand Wikipedia policies as much as you think you do, and you refuse to engage consensus building and revert to your edits endlessly. Communication is required. If you refuse to collaborate, you will win over nobody.

You have a habit of inserting "some say" or a variation of the sort when it's uncalled for, like doing it to something that a majority of reliable sources agree with. You shouldn't give an undue weight to things like this. Wikipedia:Neutral and proportionate point of view is a helpful read.

You've added a source called Asia Times, but can you prove this is reliable? I did a background check and I can't be sure if this isn't an obscure churnalism website. It has no relation to Hong Kong's Asia Times, is a recent establishment, has no notable journalist or awards (except from the Internet Newspaper Committee, which isn't very reliable), and is not a featured member at either Naver or Daum News, which tends to be the lowest common denominator. I've found it much less unreliable to other sources like Chosun Ilbo, so I removed it, but you can raise questions at related noticeboards if you still think it is reliable. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I added some say in "It is viewed as an antifeminist backlash movement in South Korea, and has been analyzed as a symptom of gender inequality in the country." because I haven't seen any major sources saying that, and even if one said it is related, I think I saw it on a scholarly article and many others who reported this case did not relate this to that. Some was not unnecessary here. Also, you changed "Severe gender conflicts in the country have resulted in various forms of action." to "The social inequality is exacerbated by gender conflicts in the country." without citation, and this is a point that could be refuted for. For example, gender conflict in Korea has raised awareness of feminism in Korea, especially for the younger generations. Although sometimes troublesome, it also did a good job too. At least add a source when changing a sentence's meaning. I reverted that sentence because of that. Also, I don't know if these NYT opinion articles are supposed to be credible, because the one we were discussing about seems quite POV. For example, "In 2021, a woman was murdered or targeted for murder, on average, every 1.4 days or less." is a great example, since South Korea has some of the lowest homicide rate among the developed nations, but instead of mentioning the homicide rate, it decides to mentioned how many people were killed each day, which would make it seem like the country has a very high homicide rate. On the Asian Times, I thought it was the one relate to Hong Kong, but now that I search up about it, it seems not and I apologize for that. I'll add 동아일보 to the citation, since this one will be more credible. On the undue weight, I didn't add in any sentences that would be supporting this theory either. Someone123454321 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I agree with Silomeone123454321 on the homicide rate bit. 1.2 women per day is not that much compared to many other places; that stat makes it sound disproportionately scary grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is from a report by Human Rights Watch, including that "Gender-based violence is shockingly widespread", so it's not an argument to be taken lightly. I checked the source for this and it seems like the NYT author has misread it, since it actually says 1.8 days instead. I do think there was more comprehensive statistics for this.

Someone123454321, you said you cited The Dong-A Ilbo, but it's actually not from the newspaper. As you can see at the bottom of the article, it'a a mirror of Game Donga. This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources/Archive 2#The Dong-A Ilbo, but Game Donga does not share editorials with the main corporation. It's instead run by some unknown company GameGru, which has much lower standards and a mess that regularly publishes questionable gossips based on online hearsay. A lot of South Korean gaming outlet has a similar problem that seems to hire part-timers for low-effort articles, and generally should be avoided. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "shockingly widespread" bit is fine, but my point is the statistic is not really convincing and feels a bit sensationalist given broader context of safety in South Korea. It's also possible for sources themselves to have issues. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That just proved my point that NYT opinion articles are not reliable. They didn't even recheck the sources on their own articles. Also, whether it is 1.4 or 1.8 per day, the homicide rate is not that bad, and in fact, quite low even compared to other developed nations. The wording had a little bias in it, which HRW has been criticized for on similar matters, and requires attribution based on Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide. Also, I don't think that the original article was related to the topic in the first place, as it never even mentions anything about the finger pinching theory. Someone123454321 (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One typo doesn't discredit the entire article, though it should be amended in the Wikipedia article. I don't know why you mention in-text attribution here, since it's been already done: Gender-based violence in South Korea was described by the Human Rights Watch as "shockingly widespread". I see you mention a source having a bias, but being biased doesn't necessarily means it's unreliable. If a source meets the requirements for reliable sources, it still can be cited, albeit preferrably with attribution as you said. You can read about this at WP:BIASEDSOURCES.

I've checked the noticeboards about the former discussions about Human Rights Watch, like Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_152#'Human_Rights_Watch'_source or Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Human_Rights_Watch. It seems like there's no strong consensus about the source, but it's stated it is commonly referred to by other sources and doesn't appear to have really egregious issues, so I think it's fair to present it as one viewpoint.

This all comes down to finding better sources, though. You're right that news coverage that contains more relevant information to the conspiracy theory would be an improvement to this. Are there any journals, reports, or anything that could bring more insight into this? Since this is quite a niche topic, it's a challenge to find a properly written, reliable source for this, especially in English. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple factors that discredit the article, even other than the misinformation from the source they provided. The first and the biggest factor would be the fact that the article is a Guest article. Guest essays in the New York Times (and similar major publications) can be written by a wide range of individuals, not limited to professional journalists. Not only that, NYT editorial staff does screen guest essays, but:

They are not subject to the same editorial process as reported journalism.

The opinions expressed are the author’s own, not NYT's.

There are written on Op-ed Wikipedia article, as well as other sources.

Also, regarding the Human Rights Watch article, we cannot connect the article to the conspiracy theory, as the article does not even mention the topic. I could not find any other articles that connects South Korea's homicide rate to this specific topic either. As discussed above, the statement of 1.4 people per day makes it sound disproportionately scary, and could spread possible misinformation that Korea has high homicide rate, when the reality is different. If we are going to include this in the article, we need to make like "South Korea has a homicide ratio of 0.531 in 2022" or something like that. But at that point, that is unnecessary as homicide ratio of 0.531 is the second lowest among the OECD nations. Someone123454321 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Someone123454321. Opinion pieces carry less weight, and the stat is presented in a way that gives a misleading impression about South Korea and safety. And even if we were to use the underlying HRW source, that doesn't change my skepticism about that stat. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also these article-related substantive points should be on the article talk page, not on Someone123454321's personal talk page. Nobody can see this content dispute here. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for someone else to chime in on that RfC so that we can finally move on to something. Unfortunately it appears this topic does not pique interest of too many people.

Having "less weight" doesn't mean it's unreliable. This was already mentioned in the article talk page, but both of those NYT opinion pieces were written by Hawon Jung (and are a part of her article series, so to speak), who is a former Agence France-Presse journalist and a published author of related topics, which does meet some requirements for reliability. HRW is likewise commonly cited enough to be considered reliable in this case. It is true the attribution should be moved from NYT to the author, per WP:RSOPINION, but this does not necessarily mean it should be excised because of what we think is "reality". Wikipedia looks for verifiability, not truth.

What's an issue here, now that we're getting into it, is the background section represents limited viewpoints since there are only a few sources cited there. I'm repeating myself, but this all comes down to finding more pertinent, more reliable sources. Someone123454321, do you have any sources on this? Or do you want me to do it? You have not answered my question for this. If you don't want to, I'll seek them myself. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the Finger pinching theory talk page. Why are we even discussing this on my talk page? Someone123454321 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, Someone123454321, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages that you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia or the Tutorial
• Create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• How to add those all-important references
• Simplified style guide

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, If you need help visit the Teahouse or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]