This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Megalia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The recent edits by ZERO2CT, while not vandalism, do not appear suitable as content for Wikipedia. I'm opening this talkpage section in the hopes that a reasonable compromise can be achieved. Some of the sources may provide useful information for the article, but since I don't read Korean, I'm not able to assess them myself. Regardless, even if the new sources are viable, the wording should be discussed and agreed on here before anything is changed in the article itself. Yunshui 雲 水 15:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I just write my thoughts in some form of summary. Megalia is a website aiming to promote female rights. It has been born out of the mega forum DC Inside (very similar to Reddit). I think it is important to note that it is a website and not a group. And the site is a forum/message board and not a site on which a group announces news.
Now, going further to discuss the content. The section "Slang" does not belong to wikipedia IMO. This could be something for the Urban Dictionary. Basically, everything can become a curseword when you put "~chung" behind it. It would be hard to proof that these words were created on Megalia. And does Megalia really "coin" those words?
For the "Criticism" section. "In October 2015, Megalia flamed EBS Online lecture teacher Lee-daji (이다지) due to her remarks that "A woman should do the obligation for obtain the rights.". Megalia didn't agree what she said, so they attacked her." How is this notable? This putting the information "Donald Trump's inaugoration received a lot of criticism on r/hillary while it was praised on r/the_Donald" in the article Reddit. Same goes for the other two "incidents". It is like reporting which posts had been made on the web board.
The section "Derived sites" is very similar to the criticism section, just that this time, it is not about Megalia posts, but about posts on these sites.
Maybe there could be a controversy section in style of Reddit#Controversies. It seems like the user took Ilbe Storehouse as a template for this article, cause it is also not very good. It makes also use of these cursewords.
PS: The user who restored the content also put "created in 2015, where the users praise women's supremacy and misandry and aim dying out of Korean men." in the lead. -- 141.51.213.155 ( talk) 16:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 06:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Editors, including IP's, are reminded to avoid edit warring and to take content disputes to the talk page for discussion. I have received, and am declining for now, a request to protect this article. However if it looks like persistent edit warring is continuing I will take whatever measures are necessary to curb it. Please remember that there are multiple avenues open for resolving disputes. See WP:DR for suggestions. If you have questions or comments feel free to ping me or drop me a line on my talk page as I am not adding this to my already insance watchlist. Thank you for your cooperation. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC) |
@ Ad Orientem, Christian140, Double Happiness, Kiyoweap, Lemongirl942, Thatpower, Yunshui, and ZERO2CT: (notifying recent editors other then reverting) Idh0854 brought up an issue on user talk:Idh0854#Megalia that "controversial" is no longer controversial and also is not sourced. Is it now supported or should the lede be revised? Jim1138 ( talk) 21:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
There's no doubt Megalia is controversial and confrontational.. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 00:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is an English introduction of Megalia btw written in the form of a letter. What makes a website controversial? The userbase of the website seems very small. The viewcount, upvotes and comments for each posts are low, for the two latter ones not even reaching two digit numbers. Sometimes no post even for weeks ( [3]).Correction: As I see now, the category "Project" is an exception and has indeed a relatively high viewcount and also three digit number upvotes.) Everything what happens on the forum is not newsworthy at all. Korean reporters just search for some extreme things they can find since these stories sell better. 4chan is not called controversial in its lede despite being called like this by the media (Guardian). That is all I can add. I think the site needs more assessment by native speakers. It would be interesting to know if the website appears in newer sociological studies regarding feminism. -- Christian140 ( talk) 12:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Just an FYI: I notice that http://megalian.com often (but not always) returns Server Error (500). unexpected condition that prevented it from fulfilling the request by the client Poor maintenance? Jim1138 ( talk) 22:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I would rather start with the meaning of "controversial". When I hear "controversial website" I wouldn't think of a site that received negative response in the media because of single posts made by anonymous individuals. I would rather think of a website like Ashley Madison which very objective is controversial. Probably also Wikileaks. But Megalia's objective of strengthening female rights doesn't not seem very controversial. -- Christian140 ( talk) 08:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't there anything about the ongoing South Korean political scandal in the article? Why can't I find anything about the Daughters of Megalia anywhere on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.160.99 ( talk) 16:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Anotheranothername: I've read this article a couple of times now and see now problems with weasel words. Please be more specific or remove the tag. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 11:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@ 221.157.113.3: You didn't add a "misogyny" tag. You added tags for "misandry", "violence against men", "anti-South Korean sentiment", etc. Those are accusations leveled at Megalia by right-wing critics. I understand that many (perhaps most) South Koreans agree with those accusations, but Wikipedia does not make definitive claims based on the views of the general public. I have yet to see reliable sources argue that Megalia falls into any of those categories. If you know any, feel free to share. SilverStar54 ( talk) 00:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Megalia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The recent edits by ZERO2CT, while not vandalism, do not appear suitable as content for Wikipedia. I'm opening this talkpage section in the hopes that a reasonable compromise can be achieved. Some of the sources may provide useful information for the article, but since I don't read Korean, I'm not able to assess them myself. Regardless, even if the new sources are viable, the wording should be discussed and agreed on here before anything is changed in the article itself. Yunshui 雲 水 15:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I just write my thoughts in some form of summary. Megalia is a website aiming to promote female rights. It has been born out of the mega forum DC Inside (very similar to Reddit). I think it is important to note that it is a website and not a group. And the site is a forum/message board and not a site on which a group announces news.
Now, going further to discuss the content. The section "Slang" does not belong to wikipedia IMO. This could be something for the Urban Dictionary. Basically, everything can become a curseword when you put "~chung" behind it. It would be hard to proof that these words were created on Megalia. And does Megalia really "coin" those words?
For the "Criticism" section. "In October 2015, Megalia flamed EBS Online lecture teacher Lee-daji (이다지) due to her remarks that "A woman should do the obligation for obtain the rights.". Megalia didn't agree what she said, so they attacked her." How is this notable? This putting the information "Donald Trump's inaugoration received a lot of criticism on r/hillary while it was praised on r/the_Donald" in the article Reddit. Same goes for the other two "incidents". It is like reporting which posts had been made on the web board.
The section "Derived sites" is very similar to the criticism section, just that this time, it is not about Megalia posts, but about posts on these sites.
Maybe there could be a controversy section in style of Reddit#Controversies. It seems like the user took Ilbe Storehouse as a template for this article, cause it is also not very good. It makes also use of these cursewords.
PS: The user who restored the content also put "created in 2015, where the users praise women's supremacy and misandry and aim dying out of Korean men." in the lead. -- 141.51.213.155 ( talk) 16:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 06:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Editors, including IP's, are reminded to avoid edit warring and to take content disputes to the talk page for discussion. I have received, and am declining for now, a request to protect this article. However if it looks like persistent edit warring is continuing I will take whatever measures are necessary to curb it. Please remember that there are multiple avenues open for resolving disputes. See WP:DR for suggestions. If you have questions or comments feel free to ping me or drop me a line on my talk page as I am not adding this to my already insance watchlist. Thank you for your cooperation. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC) |
@ Ad Orientem, Christian140, Double Happiness, Kiyoweap, Lemongirl942, Thatpower, Yunshui, and ZERO2CT: (notifying recent editors other then reverting) Idh0854 brought up an issue on user talk:Idh0854#Megalia that "controversial" is no longer controversial and also is not sourced. Is it now supported or should the lede be revised? Jim1138 ( talk) 21:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
There's no doubt Megalia is controversial and confrontational.. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 00:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is an English introduction of Megalia btw written in the form of a letter. What makes a website controversial? The userbase of the website seems very small. The viewcount, upvotes and comments for each posts are low, for the two latter ones not even reaching two digit numbers. Sometimes no post even for weeks ( [3]).Correction: As I see now, the category "Project" is an exception and has indeed a relatively high viewcount and also three digit number upvotes.) Everything what happens on the forum is not newsworthy at all. Korean reporters just search for some extreme things they can find since these stories sell better. 4chan is not called controversial in its lede despite being called like this by the media (Guardian). That is all I can add. I think the site needs more assessment by native speakers. It would be interesting to know if the website appears in newer sociological studies regarding feminism. -- Christian140 ( talk) 12:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Just an FYI: I notice that http://megalian.com often (but not always) returns Server Error (500). unexpected condition that prevented it from fulfilling the request by the client Poor maintenance? Jim1138 ( talk) 22:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I would rather start with the meaning of "controversial". When I hear "controversial website" I wouldn't think of a site that received negative response in the media because of single posts made by anonymous individuals. I would rather think of a website like Ashley Madison which very objective is controversial. Probably also Wikileaks. But Megalia's objective of strengthening female rights doesn't not seem very controversial. -- Christian140 ( talk) 08:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't there anything about the ongoing South Korean political scandal in the article? Why can't I find anything about the Daughters of Megalia anywhere on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.160.99 ( talk) 16:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Anotheranothername: I've read this article a couple of times now and see now problems with weasel words. Please be more specific or remove the tag. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 11:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@ 221.157.113.3: You didn't add a "misogyny" tag. You added tags for "misandry", "violence against men", "anti-South Korean sentiment", etc. Those are accusations leveled at Megalia by right-wing critics. I understand that many (perhaps most) South Koreans agree with those accusations, but Wikipedia does not make definitive claims based on the views of the general public. I have yet to see reliable sources argue that Megalia falls into any of those categories. If you know any, feel free to share. SilverStar54 ( talk) 00:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)