Talk:Finger pinching conspiracy theory#rfc 3FD3F47

I tagged the article as NPOV. I want to emphasize this up front: my opinions on the topic itself don't matter, and I don't have many. I am solely trying to follow Wikipedia standards on a contentious topic.

In a significant number of paragraphs in the article, I'm finding language that I feel has issues with presenting allegations and analysis by journalists as fact, WP:WTW, and making subjective claims/analysis in Wikipedia's voice. There are instances of the language being avoidably emotionally charged, with negative language being associated with the theorists.

Examples (not a complete list):

• {{Tq|that feminists are plotting behind the shadows to harm or worsen their lives}} "plotting behind the shadows" is unnecessarily flowery and seems to be worded with the intent to ridicule. "Planning covertly" is drier.
• Also, I'm skeptical with the wording of this. Is there really a widespread belief that feminists are attempting to physically harm them? From a quick skim of the source given for that claim I can't find that allegation.
• While inequities towards women are presented, there is no presentation of why men feel they are discriminated against. Of course, we want to avoid WP:UNDUE weight on misandry (will be hard to judge); I suspect (but have no stats) that they're a minority group/opinion, and thus we should avoid significant discussion. However, there's currently virtually no discussion of them at all in the article, which doesn't feel proportionate to me.
• The closing of Megalia does not mean the total disappearance of misandry in South Korea. The current wording read, at least to me, that the fact that Megalia is gone that concerns of misandry existing in society were completely misplaced.
• Related: {{tq|In South Korea, feminists are labelled "man haters", "destroyers of family", and "female supremacists".}} The wording of this implies the entire country labels all feminists using these terms. The list also feels unnecessarily emotionally charged. Misandrists also use emotionally charged language like this; again we want to avoid UNDUE, but given the other issues I'm alleging in the article, only one side being presented feels like a data point in a pattern of intentionally disparaging anti-feminists.
• {{tq|Kim Chang-seop announced Nexon would eradicate all visual works created by Ppuri}} Unless this word is either verbatim or closely translated from the source, "eradicate" is unnecessarily emotionally charged. If it is from the source, put the word in quotes and provide the original Korean per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE If it's not from the orig text, "remove" is drier.
• Frequent issues with MOS:SAID. Words like "stated", "noted", "showed", and "concluded" are being used to present observations (and even allegations) from individual journalists as settled fact.
• {{tq|Nexon's support renewed the theorists' interest in the finger hunt.}} There are a number of statements like these. Subjective analysis being presented as fact; I'm not sure if these allegations of trends are explicitly coming from journalists, but if they are you should attribute it to the specific journalists. People aren't monolithic hiveminds; it's hard to determine, in narrative fashion, that things motivate each other. You can write something like "Journalist x of y argues that this incident renewed..."
• Related: there are frequent issues with MOS:DESPITE; suggests the presence of editorializing or WP:SYNTH. In other words, presenting events as falling into a sequence of events or narrative. As before, you can present this kind of analysis as coming from a specific analyst, but not as settled fact.
• Issues with WP:NEWSOPED. Some of the sources being used are opinion pieces, but are being used to present analysis as settled fact. Examples include this [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/opinion/international-world/korea-emoji-feminism-misogyny.html NYT opinion piece] and [https://www.hankookilbo.com/NewsLetter/herspective/Read/1541 이혜미 column]. I'm spotting a number of others.

seefooddiet (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

:@Emiya Mulzomdao tagging primary author of article seefooddiet (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

:@seefooddiet, I thought roughly the same thing when I first came across this article, but I couldn't put it into words. I felt like tagging it with something, but my aforementioned inability to explain why made me feel like I'd be at risk of drive-by tagging. For the record, I don't think the creator is writing in bad faith—they seem like a Korean video games fan who may have naturally heard of this controversy. But one has to be really, really careful when writing about hot-button topics like these. Good day, Wuju Daisuki (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

::I agree; I don't think the writing is in bad faith, but the topic is so contentious that scrutiny is necessary. seefooddiet (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

:I'm all for improvements. Do you suggest taking this to draft for the moment? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for being receptive. It doesn't seem like a serious enough case for a draftify to me. The sourcing and content is mostly fine seefooddiet (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

::@Emiya Mulzomdao Ok, I'm going to be honest, I hadn't read the second half of the article in detail until now, and it's much more worrying. This section borders being an opinion piece. This needs to be urgently addressed. If you don't feel like you can address it prompty, we can draftify. I'd try to rewrite it myself, but I'm spotting potential POV in nearly every sentence; it's hard to address. seefooddiet (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

:::I find your words ambiguous. Is it that the way the article is written is emotionally charged or the fact that it contains POV? The former is the one I already agreed with before, but if it's the latter, I don't agree. Wikpedia's policy does not forbid the inclusion of properly sourced bias that aren't editorial (WP:POVDELETION). I took care in picking WP:RS and mostly attached "Journalist x of y" to it. I'd listen if you point out what's wrong with the sources, but your reply doesn't seem to be about that.

:::At any rate, I had taken your advice and am going to update the article by adding people and opinions that advocate the theory, to fill all angles of the topic – not very easy to do, given that they're more uncommon in WP:RS than the opposition, but I find this necessary. Whatever you're referring to right now, I'll also be likely to help, if you clear up what you're trying to say. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

::::Mmmm 🙁 I'm seeing numerous things that are clearly against WP:NPOV, please give that page a more thorough read. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finger-pinching_conspiracy_theory&diff=1239348149&oldid=1238944449 I already gave some of the issues a scrub], but there's more. What particularly worried me was "absurd to the core", which I already removed; that's clearly not ok and goes past the line of POV.

::::{{tq|There's a condified pattern}} subjective analysis presented as definite in Wikipedia's voice. {{tq|such apologies only emboldened the theorists}} ditto. {{tq|caving in to the theorists' demands}} unnecessarily emotionally charged; "giving in" or "accepting" are more neutral. {{tq|noted}} MOS:SAID. {{tq|Notable}} WP:NOTABLY {{tq|fed the pinch-fingering theories}} "fed" is unnecessarily flowery; it's metaphorical, "enabled" is dryer. {{tq|fiasco}} WP:WTW. {{tq|finger-pinching theorists, who demanded all participants'}} allegation, and they're not a monolithic group.

::::The above is not a complete list. But there are common patterns in my feedback that you should now be able to spot, especially if you read the policies I've linked thoroughly. Please do so; this issue is important, we need to be thorough.

::::I still don't think you understand the point about opinion pieces. Please read WP:NEWSOPED more carefully. You can use opinion pieces, but not to claim facts, especially not facts that are controversial. You need more detatched news articles for that.

::::A side note, but the second half of the article has significantly more grammar errors than the first half. That'll need to be solved at some point, maybe can focus on the POV for now. seefooddiet (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::I'll prioritize clarifying the sources and rewording, but you should know some articles are more than mere opinion-based columns, such as [https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/1022240.html The Hankyoreh article including thorough statistics of real-life internet posts]. There's no fallacy in giving a weight to an article when the source is reliable, its claim has verifiable evidences, and it aligns with the majority viewpoint per WP:UNDUE, which is also one of the Wikipeida policies you brought up.

:::::Grammar issues are something I tried to prevent via correction tools but it seems like they didn't work as intended. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::I didn't say all of the articles are opinion pieces. I meant that some of them are. That's already enough to be an issue.

::::::I'll give the article another revision for POV and prose in the near future. While I appreciate the effort you've made so far, I'm a little disappointed with the pushback to feedback later on. Granted, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Finger-pinching_conspiracy_theory#c-Seefooddiet-20240808193200-Emiya_Mulzomdao-20240803120300 this comment from me] could have been more specific, but considering that all the feedback in all my comments followed the same few themes, I feel like you should have spotted these issues yourself without me needing to point them out.

::::::I can't emphasize enough how important it is that we get this right. Wikipedia gets accused of being biased all the time; if we get neutrality wrong it erodes the credibility of the website and makes our writing a waste of time. seefooddiet (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Just want to be clear, I don't oppose what you're trying to accomplish nor do I desire to impede your work. Since you told me to take the matter seriously, I'm doing exactly that and making sure things get done right without having to redo the same parts. I'll re-review the article when I get the time. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks for the further edits. I made more of my own. It's getting closer, but there's still some significant issues I think.

::::::::* There's a good chunk of repetition in the article. I'd argue this is both a style issue and a POV issue; I'd argue that these repeated mentions contribute to WP:UNDUE weight. This will be hard to fix. Examples:

::::::::** Discussions of Nexon throughout the article, with repeated details and opinions about Nexon and its actions.

::::::::** Discussions of various politicians, especially Lee Jun-seok and Lee Sang-heon.

::::::::** I feel there are too many quotes and opinions in the article. A good chunk of these quotes/opinions are near carbon copies of each other and should just be consolidated into statements like "a number of commentators argued that x.[ref 1][ref 2][ref 3] etc".

::::::::** Based on my perception of the article, I'd argue it's possible/desirable to reduce the overall length of the article by to 2/3rds of the original size by consolidating the repetition. I'd try to spell out how to do this, but there's many possible ways to do this and it's not a simple task.

::::::::* If you translate a quote yourself, you should provide the original Korean text (probably in a footnote), per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE. The need for this is arguably higher for controversial articles.

::::::::I wish I could make this feedback more specific, but I hope you can understand it's hard to do so. This is a controversial topic and a long article, which makes some of these issues hard to address. seefooddiet (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::I understand. I am not certain that the article length would decrease as much as two-thirds, but I'll see where this takes to as I trim down the redundant sentences.

:::::::::The edits this time are not gonna be obvious from WP:DIFF; the changes include:

:::::::::* GS25's case in 'List of notable responses' was removed and replaced with a redirect to 'History'.

:::::::::* Most of Nexon's were merged into 'MapleStory scandal'. Its section in 'List of notable responses' was replace with redirect. The paragraph in 'Criticism' is intact because it strongly correlates to that section.

:::::::::* {{Tq|The MapleStory scandal was the first of a series of similar events that occurred in the rest of 2023 and continued in the following year, with organizations like POSCO and the Ministry of Health and Welfare subject to similar accusations.}} This felt unnecessary as it's already covered by 'List of notable responses', so I cut it.

:::::::::* {{Tq|The theory had support from political figures with a wide range of political views; some did not withdraw their previous statements of support when various allegations were shown to be false. For example, politicians Lee Jun-seok and Lee Sang-heon accused Ppuri of misandry during the 2023 MapleStory scandal.}} Moved into 'Advocacy'.

:::::::::* {{Tq|Young Korean men consider themselves victims of woman activism.}} This is redundant due to a survey about reverse discrimination and [https://www.economist.com/asia/2021/06/17/young-men-in-south-korea-feel-victimised-by-feminism its opinion source] doesn't add much, so I cut both it and the source.

:::::::::* {{Tq|The New York Times's Hawon Jung argued most Korean businesses quelled the protests from theorists by removing items accused of misandry and apologizing. Columnist Park Gwon-il wrote on The Hankyoreh that submitting to the theorists' demands has had a side effect of reinforcing their confirmatory bias, repeating the same controversies. Korea National University of Arts lecturer Oh Hye-min argued that such appeasement offers short term relief from controversy, but contributes to repeated issues. She argued that giving attention to the theorists is the cause of misogyny: "By fulfilling their needs, the companies are actually infringing on people's rights to labor and expression, which many artists are actually exposed to".}} Abridged into one sentence.

:::::::::* {{Tq|Noh Jimin, of Media Today, was instead critical of the news media that approached the GS25 incidents as a hot button topic and amplified theorists' voices. She later iterated the same points in reaction to the MapleStory scandal, chastising news media that focused on tying the incident to Megalia instead of evaluating Nexon's response.}} Also abridged into one sentence.

:::::::::I'll consider adding foreign quotes once they settle down. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::Thank you for the edits. I made more of my own, largely focused on grammar but also minor POV/repetition related items.

::::::::::* I tagged one sentence with a clarify request (ctrl+f "which?"), because without clarifying which slang was used, allegations like this feel especially like subjective hearsay.

::::::::::* I tagged another sentence with undue weight (ctrl+f "undue"); it's the one about the employee who allegedly supported stalker-like behavior. I said this in edit comment, but I'm not sure if/how this anecdote should be presented. The current wording "chase after female college students at night" reads POV; the employee supported following, not "chasing" (which evokes images of running after aggressively). Also, every large company will have neurotic employees; we should be cautious about presenting instances like this as part of a trend. Similarly, if there was such a person in an organization you belonged to, you'd dislike if you were lumped in with them.

::::::::::I still feel that repetition is a significant issue that should be further addressed.

::::::::::* The discussions of the impact of online communities, Gamergate, flat Earthers, Trumpism, trolling, etc could be consolidated.

::::::::::* The "advocacy section" and criticisms section should possibly be merged into a "Debate" section; also see WP:CRITICISMSECTION. This would help alleviate the repeated mentions of Lee Jun-seok. Furthermore, the mention of Ryu Ho-jeong is out of place in the advocacy section; Ryu is against the theory, not for it. Her commentary should be in the criticism section, if anything, and her given comments are pretty general and should be merged with other feedback.

::::::::::* The debate/mentions of politicians should possibly be consolidated into one or two paragraphs that are placed close to each other. Currently they're split up across the article, and their opinions often overlap.

::::::::::seefooddiet (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::I went through the items to see what I could do.

:::::::::::* Criticism and advocacy were merged per suggestion.

:::::::::::* The sections about the policitians and online communities were also merged and moved into its own section.

:::::::::::* The [which?] is based on this paragraph in [https://www.khan.co.kr/national/national-general/article/202105140600015 the article] (bolded by me)

::::::::::::{{Tq|이준석 국민의힘 전 최고위원(사진)이 나선 것은 2일 오후였다. 그는 자신의 페이스북에 GS의 해당 광고와 사과문을 올리며 “(GS의 한) 점주가 ‘오또케오또케’하는 사람(다급한 상황에서 ‘어떡해’라는 말만 거듭하며 대처하지 못하는 여성을 비하하는 표현)은 아르바이트생으로 사절한다고 해서 (논란이 되자 GS가) 점주를 교육시키고 불이익을 주겠다는 회사가 왜 이 사건에 있어서는 책임자에 대해 어떻게 하겠다는 것인지 밝히지 못하냐”고 적었다.}}

::::::::::::This part is ultimately a minor detail and could be deleted for that reason.

:::::::::::* The [undue], I don't necessarily agree with that it's against WP:UNDUE, given that this is not a simple allegation from individual, but a claim backed by an identifiable organization (Counter-antifeminism Emergency Response Committee—wish there were a better translation) reported through reliable sources. If you thought it was presenting instances as part of a trend, that's because the organization is arguing that the trend exists. I've added more references to it with WP:RS; they all mention these incidents. And that "if there was such a person in an organization you belonged to, you'd dislike if you were lumped in with them"... My personal feeling if I were put in their shoes doesn't matter. What matters is if this statement was sourced and presented properly. I suggest reviewing the sources to discuss the next course of action.

:::::::::::* I'm afraid you mistook what Ryu Ho-jeong said. She clearly supports the theory, not the other way around. This is pretty obvious if you read the sources: [https://www.chosun.com/national/national_general/2023/11/29/C4W7A3DMVBD3DB6QQN454VPDBQ/] [https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25212463]

:::::::::::* A few other overlapped sentences were abridged.

:::::::::::Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thanks for the edits.

::::::::::::* I removed the bit relevant to the [which] tag. The article is already really long and I do feel like it's a minor detail.

::::::::::::* For the undue bit, I reworded it to be more NPOV-friendly, per my above comment. {{tq|If you thought it was presenting instances as part of a trend, that's because the organization is arguing that the trend exists.}} Considering the employee was fired wouldn't it constitute the company not endorsing the views of this employee? However, if the incident is frequently mentioned in RS then maybe we should keep it in, especially after my edit toning it down.

::::::::::::* I think the "Claims and pattern" section is largely repetitive with the rest of the article. If you want for that section to serve as a summary, that's the job of the lead. The main ideas of this section should be moved to the lead; the details (e.g. "can of starbucks espresso" etc) should be moved into the body somewhere.

::::::::::::* Note that I'm going in and consolidating more information that I think is repetitive, overly lengthy, or has grammatical issues. Please feel free to revert any of the changes if you disagree with them. Normally I'd run each of these changes by you first, but again it's a long article, and discussing all of the edits would be time consuming.

::::::::::::* Several sentences I don't understand what is being said due to grammar. Could you try rephrasing these?

::::::::::::** {{tq|Ryu argued that feminism is about the faith that gender equality would contribute to social community}}

::::::::::::** The presentation of Yu Seonhui's arguments is pretty lengthy and I don't understand what's being said. For this could you aim for both concision and rephrasing?

::::::::::::** I put in a clarification request (ctrl+f "Jang's opinion"), also related to grammar and prose, explanation in the template.

::::::::::::seefooddiet (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Your edits are spot on. I did some changes here and there:

:::::::::::::* Some hyperlinks to words like "cherry picking" were restored. Cherry picking is something directly mentioned in [https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/A2021051111010000249 In's article] ('사실의 취사선택') so I figured this is an important detail to keep.

:::::::::::::* Getting rid of the quote in MapleStory scandal was a change for the better, but I restored the citation because it can fit in an existing paragraph.

:::::::::::::* I fixed some erroneous pronouns - Jang Seonyeong is a she, for example.

:::::::::::::* {{Tq|A 2021 The Hankyoreh report argued that (...)}} I changed "argued" to "found" because this article is not a simple opinion piece but contains a research cooperated with other groups, so I think there's enough credibility to warrant such change. There were also a lot of repeated "argued" in the paragraph.

:::::::::::::And the others:

:::::::::::::* {{Tq|Considering the employee was fired wouldn't it constitute the company not endorsing the views of this employee?}} The thing is that it was not the man who advocated stalking that got fired, according to their statement; it was the person who object to the man that got fired. Per [https://news.kbs.co.kr/news/pc/view/view.do?ncd=7908817 KBS News report]:

::::::::::::::{{Tq|"회사의 대표가 '자신이 대학생 때는 좋아하는 여학생을 밤에 따라다니는 것은 국룰이었다'고 말하자 동조하지 않고 '그분은 좀 놀라셨을 수도 있겠어요'라고 답했습니다."
"그랬더니 대표에게 '사상과 가치관이 맞지 않으니 내일부터 나오지 마라'며 돌연 해고통보를 당했습니다."}}

::::::::::::::This same report also clarifies that the man is a president of the company, which makes sense.

::::::::::::::I'm still thinking about how to write about this report, as the articles mention a lot of other incidents as well, and the current state doesn't quite represent the whole source.

:::::::::::::* I can see that parts in "Claims and pattern" are repetitive, but I still think the section as a whole is necessary because the reader needs to first learn about the specifics of what the conspiracy theory find suspicious; otherwise the article would be harder to understand because of the unusual topic. I did find that The Hankyoreh report about the pattern largely overlaps with "Internet trolling" and might be WP:UNDUE because of relying on a single source, so I merged it with the latter and knocked it down to just "Claims".

:::::::::::::* {{Tq|Ryu argued that feminism is about the faith that gender equality would contribute to social community}} So what Ryu's saying in [https://www.chosun.com/national/national_general/2023/11/29/C4W7A3DMVBD3DB6QQN454VPDBQ/ the article], essentially, is that there're good feminists and bad feminists. Ryu herself is the good one because she conforms to social order, and the others are the bad one because (she thinks) they put fingers in works and hurt people. Regardless, I think you can simply remove it because it's superficial to the overall sentences.

:::::::::::::* The point of {{Tq|Jang's opinion (...)}} is that Ryu was an elected Justice Party politician at the time of MapleStory incident, and she started switching to New Reform Party since this statement. This is also an irrelevant minor detail that can be removed.

:::::::::::::Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Ok, I've removed the templates. Thanks for working with me. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finger_pinching_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1244804979 Version at time of this post]

::::::::::::::* I think there are still lingering issues with tone, repetition, wordiness, and grammar.

::::::::::::::* I said earlier I think the article's length could have been reduced 1/3rd; I still think the more ideal article would be that. We already went a good way there and I can already see more possible edits.

::::::::::::::** The claims section I'm still skeptical of; its purpose strongly overlaps with the purpose of the lead. It's functionally a second lead at present.

::::::::::::::* To reiterate in closing, the reason I care about length and repetition is because it possibly contributes to perceptions of POV. It's the repetition of negative-sounding words in particular that worries me. When I write on controversy, one of my main objectives is to avoid this issue.

::::::::::::::That said, I think at present the article doesn't cross over the line of POV. seefooddiet (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I can how repetition can lead to WP:UNDUE. I'll review the sources again and see if I can chop it down to avoid overlapping of POV. I think part of the issues in the claim section comes from that the lead isn't concise enough.

:::::::::::::::I appreciate your effort to bring this article up to standards. The current form is in a far better state than when it started. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

A tiny cartoon that doesn't even show the correct gesture isn't good enough. 2.221.246.239 (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Should the article really claim that "most agree"? I mean, no poll has ever been done. Perhaps some journalists have made that claim, but how would they really know? I think the wording should be changed to show that this is the personal feelings of a journalist or some journalists. 72.251.184.89 (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:You got any source on this? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::I don't need to prove that not most people believe it, we need a source that has a poll claiming most people believe it or don't believe it in order to include that opinion in the article. 2600:1008:B066:DCC9:5D7E:32D8:7833:C2FD (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Fwiw I agree with the IP user. Claim may need to be softened. seefooddiet (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Which part of the article is this about? I did Ctrl+F "most agree" or "most" and still didn't figure out what the IP address is referring to. I can't help out if I have nothing to work with. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I also pointed this out in one of the edits that I made. Surprised to see it here. Changed it from "widely agreed" to "considered to be a hoax by numerous mainstream media". Someone123454321 (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Someone123454321 You're making changes like this too aggressively when trust in your edits is still low. These kinds of changes require more time, instead you litigate them on the spot and then aggressively revert live depending on how you feel the discussion is leaning. Note that I'm saying this even when we agreed with each other in this conversation.

:::::I'm really not enjoying this right now. You've ignored my advice multiple times already. Still don't think you understand why so much of this behavior is raising red flags. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Do we really need that here? Is it related to this subject? Finger Pinching conspiracy theory, although I also agree to be hoax on the most part, or at least some of them, has a lot to do more with online trolling. None of the other parts of the article talks about gender inequality inside of Korea, but about how the theory is considered to be a hoax, or how there are no clear evidence. Also, "has been analyzed as a symptom of gender inequality in the country." kind of seems POV. No article or reference here said that someone analyzed it as a symptom of gender inequality, if not misogyny or other stuff. Someone123454321 (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:These points come up constantly across the article. The references to gender inquality are present both in the article and sources, such as [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/opinion/international-world/korea-emoji-feminism-misogyny.html The New York Times] claiminig the blacklash against feminist movement is a danger to women's rights and gender equality, [https://www.pressian.com/pages/articles/2024062117272107685 Pressian] attributing the conspiracy theory's popularity to the video game industry's biased male demographic (80.9% against 19.1%), Kim Sooah's journal writing that there are antifeminist movements to discredit feminism as a gender equality activism, and [https://www.segye.com/newsView/20240105512983 Segye Ilbo's one interviewee] claiming the current Korean society dissuades discussion about gender equality.

:You can search keywords you want to find with "Ctrl+F". Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::On the Segye Ilbo's claim, although it does say something about gender inequality, "“많은 사람들이 이 세상이 무언가 잘못 굴러가고 있다는 불평등을 이미 감각하고 있는 것 같다. 그런데 ‘내가 왜 이렇게 불행하고 불안정할까. 왜 내 미래의 앞길은 보이지 않을까'" the statement that mentions it refers to both genders, and their frustration about it. The article says "“우리 사회에서 기존 질서가 가진 관행, 부조리에 대해 비판적 입장을 가진다든가 전통을 훼손시키는 것에 대한 거부감이 있다. 예전엔 종북의 이름, 빨갱이의 이름으로 이것이 있었다면 이제는 페미니스트들이 그 자리를 차지했다.", which claims that Korean society dissuades discussion about talking agaisnt it's culture or previous order, along with absurdism. However, it does not directly state about gender equality. The artlcle also states that it is also evidence that there are not many channels through which one can find voices that will support and resonate with feminist voices when they are raised, but it doesn't say anything about gender inequalities inside of Korea. Instead, it was more related to the Korean culture of bashing out a view that goes against the past order. Also, game industry's biased gender demographic doesn't relate to the inequality in Korea as a whole. For example, Webtoon industry is skewed towards female demographics more (https://www.google.com/search?q=%EC%9B%B9%ED%88%B0+%EC%9E%91%EA%B0%80+%EC%84%B1%EB%B9%84%EC%9C%A8&oq=%EC%9B%B9%ED%88%B0+%EC%9E%91%EA%B0%80+%EC%84%B1%EB%B9%84%EC%9C%A8&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIKCAEQABgKGA0YHjIHCAIQABjvBTIHCAMQABjvBTIHCAQQABjvBdIBCDMyMjlqMGo5qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) (I couldn't add the link for some reason.) but no one calls that gender inequality inside the society as a whole. It is just the ratio being biased. I couldn't see the New York Times article because I had to subscribe to it, but according to your statement "blacklash against feminist movement is a danger to women's rights and gender equality", I assume that they claimed this based on the backlash against feminism, because they have seen that this theory was a backlash against feminism, instead of gender inequality being the cause of this entire theory. So far, it still can't be helped that I am unconvinced about gender inequality being related to this topic. Someone123454321 (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This article does not claim "gender inequality being the cause of this entire theory". The lead states that authors analyzed it as a symptom of the gender inequality. Since there are numerous authors (that are not limited to sources brought up here) that associate the conspiracy theory and various incidents with gender equality issues in Korea, and gender equality itself is a common keyword mentioned in those sources, it ended up in the lead. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Can you tell me how they analyzed it as a symptom of gender inequality? Because in this wiki article, it states "As of 2021, the gender pay gap was at 35 percent, the widest among OECD economies, and 65 percent of public companies on the Korea Exchange had no female executives." How does having high pay gap and having no female executives relate to hunting finger signs online? I've seen some articles about "despite Korea being one of the countries to have the worst gender gaps" or something similar to that, but that is not a background. That is more like a criticism to what they consider anti feminism. Also, foreign articles that deal with sensitive topic on other countries tend to rely on English-language sources or activist intermediaries. Most articles that contain foreign affair(from any country) also tends to focus more on the cause, since they were not affected, and have not gone through the whole situation, sometimes leading to oversimplification. That's why when I try to find out about a foreign affair, I always try to read articles that are created in their own media. But well, that's that I guess. Someone123454321 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Wikipedia is not about whether you (nor I) personally agree about the reference. When an article from reliable source (in this case you're bringing up the [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/opinion/international-world/korea-emoji-feminism-misogyny.html NYT]) says the fingers are related to gender inequality, Wikipedia's job is to summarize it without adding original interpretation. The article's inclusion may be disputable if The NYT published such an extraorinarily exceptional claim, but it is not. There are plenty of other sources on this page that make similar arguments.

:::::I recommend reading WP:SOAPBOX and WP:ADVOCACY for Wikipedia's guideline. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, and I agree with that too. That's why I said "but that's that". However, you still haven't answered my question, which was "Can you tell me how they analyzed it as a symptom of gender inequality? Because in this wiki article, it states "As of 2021, the gender pay gap was at 35 percent, the widest among OECD economies, and 65 percent of public companies on the Korea Exchange had no female executives." How does having high pay gap and having no female executives relate to hunting finger signs online?." Because if it was stated that "despite Korea being one of the countries to have the worst gender gaps" or something similar to that, it should be on the criticism tab, not on the background. Someone123454321 (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Since there hasn't been a reply in a few days, I'm just gonna go ahead and make the edit. Feel free to discuss in this tab for any further disagreement. Someone123454321 (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Someone123454321, discussion takes time. Waiting a day or two is not grounds for restoring the edits others have reverted.

:::::::You keep bringing up how the part {{tq|As of 2021, the gender pay gap was at 35 percent, the widest among OECD economies, and 65 percent of public companies on the Korea Exchange had no female executives.}} is related to this topic. This is something pretty obvious when you check [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/opinion/international-world/korea-emoji-feminism-misogyny.html The New York Times] yourself, since the author has laid out this bit, with other information like the 2022 presidential election, as a background info for readers after she wrote about the GS25 anecdote. I sincerely suggest you to check this article to get the gist of it.

:::::::You need to slow down. You removed the word "penis" and said in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finger_pinching_conspiracy_theory&diff=1294697933&oldid=1294487889 edit summary] that it's "what we would like to refrain from", but this is not what Wikipedia guidelines agree with. Wikipedia is not censored. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Agreed with Emiya Mulzomdao. Someone123454321, you've been making significant mistakes with Wikipedia policy. I asked you before to slow down and stop working on such controversial topics until you learn policy better and you ignored my advice. I think you'll continue to lose these discussions and get stressed out and angry until you slow down and read Wikipedia policies more. Again, work on articles you enjoy so you can learn the rules without getting stressed out grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I've searched related Wikipedia policies about editing discussed articles, such as WP:BOLD, which said “If you believe the previous discussion supports the change, or if the discussion has become inactive, you may boldly make the edit., but did not address the time. I've searched up about the right time to decide how long I should wait, and still couldn't find opinions. I've asked A.I about it, and it told me 2~3 days. I do apologize if it seemed too hasty.

::::::::Back to the topic, the article that you have provided seems to be paywalled, as I would have to subscribe to the site to view the article. However, I've checked that it was an Opinion Guest Essay, and as far as I am informed, when a New York Times article is labeled "Opinion" or "Guest Essay", it's not a regular news report — it's an opinion piece, It also means that It's a commentary by an outside contributor (not staff). it reflects personal opinions and interpretations. and it is not considered objective reporting or fact-checked journalism in the same way as NYT news articles. I believe this could go against the Wikipedia policy in WP:RS as it states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact (see also § Statements of opinion, below)."

::::::::We are trying to write down facts when writing on the background tab.

::::::::Also, I believe that the line "In 2021, a woman was murdered or targeted for murder, on average, every 1.4 days or less." is also unnecessary for the topic, as Korea's homicide rate is quite low(average 0.5 per 100,000), even compared to the other developed nations(Examples: U.S having 5.8 per 100,000, Canada having 2.0 per 100,000). The article that suggests the crime rates targeting women in Korea is also a guest and opinion article from NYT too. Someone123454321 (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It's a good thing you strive for accomplishing what's in Wikipedia:Be bold, but you have to know it has a caveat as this guideline says: {{tq|Although the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that you take care of the common good and not edit disruptively or recklessly. Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted easily, usually painlessly, and it is important not to feel insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. However, some significant changes can be long-lasting and harder to fix. If you're unsure of anything, just ask for advice.}}

:::::::::You're correct that the NYT article is categorized as an opinion piece. WP:RS presents other factors to consider, though. Hawon Jung, author of both NYT articles you mentioned here, is a former journalist for Agence France-Presse and a published author of Flowers of Fire, which is relevant to this article's topic, and the author can be considered a specialist for this. The articles also clearly present these statistics with proper external references. The bit about OECD is sourced to [https://web-archive.oecd.org/2024-03-07/216272-gender-wage-gap.htm this page], although the material has changed since this article's original publication in 2021. One could argue there is room for improvement by using more direct references, but this paragraph is quite sound.

:::::::::I still do not agree with the last round of reverts you just performed. Just pointing one out for starters, adding "much" to comparative as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finger_pinching_conspiracy_theory&diff=1294986384&oldid=1294986091 you claim in this summary] is undesirable since it's an ambiguous adverb. It easily could be hundreds of thousands or just a few thousands. Wikipedia should not use vague words like this.

:::::::::Last but not least, I'll assume that the "AI" you mentioned refers to large language model. I do not recommend consulting with LLMs. Those have dozens of known problems like hallucination and they're especially unhelpful for people who just start figuring out Wikipedia. This is a matter you should take seriously. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I am sorry again for the rather hasty edit I may have proceeded. I focused more on "Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted easily, usually painlessly, and it is important not to feel insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further." part and considered mine to be easily reverted with. Also, for concerns with AI, I would like to inform you that the only time it was involved during my actions on Wikipedia was when I asked how long I should wait to make the edit. I will try to be more careful and patient when making edits that involve discussions over it later on. I am sorry again for the inconveniences that I may have caused.

::::::::::Back to the topic, on the two articles that I mentioned, they were written as 'guest edits', which does not tell me who the author of the article is. I've looked through some other opinion articles of NYT, and have seen several cases where the author of the article was written on top, instead of 'guest'. Also, even if the author may be a specialist in this field and reliable, it still does not change the fact that the article is an opinion. From what I have read, WP:RS states that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

::::::::::I believe that if the author is a reliable specialist, however, I think his statements and analysis could go down on the discourse tab as "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.". Example would be like "Hawon Jung stated/mentioned the gender inequality in the nation along with the article explaining the theory, emphasizing the connection between the two." or something like that. (I can't see the article, so it's not precise). Someone123454321 (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Just to add on a little, WP:RS states that "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." It also states "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." and "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.", which I think is where you're coming from. However, in this case, unless there is a poll showing a general opinion of public on the finger pinching theory and gender inequality being related, it is very likely for the statement to not be authoritative, even if the author is. We should attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Someone123454321 (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::The article is an opinion piece, but the background bits are not from author's arguments. These are clearly attibuted to reliable external sources within the article, not someone's speculation. The statement about wage gap is also present in an BBC article, so I'll add this as a reference per your suggestion. As for NYT article's subscription wall, I'm afraid this is something you should read the source yourself. This is discussed over at WP:PAYWALL.

::::::::::::I see you added attribution to Choi Taeseop in one paragraph, but I decided to take it out because I don't think the interview with him doesn't fit there upon re-read. That first sentence works better as a recap of the following paragraph.

::::::::::::Someone123454321, I strongly suggest you to visit Wikipedia:Teahouse and seek advices for your doing. There are friendly people over there who can provide help much more than me or most others on this website can do. There is no wrong in taking time and learning how things work here. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Yes, I'e checked out the WIkipedia:Teahouse and found that I may be able to use some help there in the future. Thank you for the advice. However, what I was arguing was not about whether the wage gap is true. High gender pay gap in Korea is an objective truth, and I am well aware of that, along with other gender inequalities that both genders may face in Korea. However, that was not what I was arguing about. I was arguing that high pay gap or having no executives in Korea Exchange is not related to this topic. Although some may have mentioned the gender inequality in Korea along with explaining the finger pinching theory or Megalia, it does not prove that they are related in an objective point of view. Rather, they are more like opinions or presumptions that those gender inequalities may have been the factors in their actions. Megalia, a site that this finger sign has originated from, has recieved criticism another feminist, Donna Kim, for some of the for focusing exclusively on combating misogyny while ignoring other issues that intersect with women's rights, such as the things you mentioned. I've read several articles about the finger pinching theory, but non, at least in Korean, mentioned the gender inequality going on in the country. It is also very common to accuse the site for pure misandry. Street interview may not be a credible source, but on a random street interview by AsianBoss, most people reacted to the site as hating men for no reason. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0H-jKAcb8). I've lived in Korea for a very long time, and I can confirm that these reactions reflect the opinion of the general public quite well. However, my confirmation is not credible, so we'll pass on with that.

:::::::::::::The argument is, that gender inequality in Korea being related to this specific title is not an objective truth, and it should be moved to discourse tab, where opinions are supposed to go. Someone123454321 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Regarding the article from BBC, I think that serves as a perfect example of why it should be treated as a criticism, instead of background. The article interviewed those who were either opposed to the movement, or were the victim of it, but did not interview anyone who had supported it or their claims. The article does not give any links or relation with this topic, other than saying "This is forcing the movement underground, in a country where gender discrimination is still deeply entrenched. South Korea has the largest gender pay gap in the OECD, a group of the world's rich countries.", which is said in a tone that seems like a criticism for what the author has perceived to be an anti-feminist movement in a country where gender inequalities have a way to go in some of its factors. Someone123454321 (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Wikipedia is not about what you think is right. Whatever conclusion you draw from YouTuber AsianBoss or something is irrelevant. We already talked about this. BBC is a source that passes the standards of verifiability, and the paragraph was already present before your reverts as {{tq|South Korea in the 2020s has been described as having gender inequality in a number of aspects.}} (bolded by me) There's no need to add superfluous words like "criticism".

:::::::::::::::This is not a whack-a-mole. When people around you (your usertalk page clearly shows others already told you about this) say to you to drop the stick, what you should do is to reflect on your behavior and improve, instead of performing rapid-fire reverts for something others hadn't pointed out yet. This is why I pointed you to Teahouse, where you can get familiar with Wikipedia guidelines quickly if you want to do so. If you're gonna just do what you do, I'm gonna ask for a third opinion myself. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I've also talked about this before, and I've said my thoughts and Youtube channel are not credible, and we'll move on with that. I realize word that was bolded by you were just added too. Yes, the article is very much credible, but they do not relate the gender inequality in Korea to the theory or the outcome itself. They only mention it. I also realized the revision you made and reverted my edits as disruptive editing. Regarding your edit "The social inequality is exacerbated by gender conflicts in the country", you just deleted the original sentence, which was "Severe gender conflicts in the country have resulted in various forms of action." and changed it's meaning. You didn't add additional citations about it either, and no article stated what you edited on. The sentence "The finger pinching conspiracy theory is widely agreed to be a hoax." fixed to "The finger pinching conspiracy theory is considered to be a hoax by numerous mainstream media." had been talked about in this page too, but no one was making any changes about it. Although I apologize if it seemed aggressive, I don't think that was POV or violating the Wikipedia policies. Could you propose the rephrasing? About the last sentence about repelling of donation to Nexon's hospital, the sources were present in the picture provided in the citation. Could you tell in what way it was disruptive? Also, I've seeked advice for my actions on teahouse like you've advised me to do. Someone123454321 (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Starting with the biggest one — I find your editing disruptive because you are unwilling to satisfy or understand Wikipedia:Verifiability. You have a constant problem of making your own argument not from any reference (e.g. "I believe that the line "In 2021, a woman was murdered or targeted for murder, on average, every 1.4 days or less." is also unnecessary for the topic, as Korea's homicide rate is quite low(average 0.5 per 100,000), even compared to the other developed nations(Examples: U.S having 5.8 per 100,000, Canada having 2.0 per 100,000)."[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Finger_pinching_conspiracy_theory#c-Someone123454321-20250611001900-Emiya_Mulzomdao-20250610112500 ]) or pushing your own experience (e.g. "I've lived in Korea for a very long time, and I can confirm that these reactions reflect the opinion of the general public quite well."[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Finger_pinching_conspiracy_theory#c-Someone123454321-20250612232100-Emiya_Mulzomdao-20250612122300]). This is original research, and Wikipedia articles should not contain this. When reliable sources have an opinion, Wikipedia only describes what that is without adding original perspective.

:::::::::::::::::You are, in fact, pushing your argument in this comment again: "they do not relate the gender inequality in Korea to the theory or the outcome itself." Both articles absolutely cover gender equality topic and mention "gender equality" verbatim.[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2621gzvkdo][https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/opinion/international-world/korea-emoji-feminism-misogyny.html] Whether you think they're related or not doesn't matter in Wikipedia.

:::::::::::::::::"The social inequality is exacerbated by gender conflicts in the country" is a recap preface of that paragraph. It doesn't need citations.

:::::::::::::::::I think "The finger pinching conspiracy theory is widely agreed to be a hoax." is fine as is since the majority of reliable sources (and Wikipedia only concern reliable sources) claim it is not true. Adding "by numerous mainstream media" makes it clunky.

:::::::::::::::::The bit about donation, I'd rather not put much focus into it since the article is not very high quality and doesn't have huge coverage from other reliable source.

:::::::::::::::::I see you took the dispute to Wikipedia:Teahouse. This is not the purpose I directed you there. What I wish you to do is asking questions about Wikipedia guidelines, for example, "I wrote about this thing. Does this follow Wikipedia:No original research?" Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::First of all, "When reliable sources have an opinion, Wikipedia only describes what that is without adding original perspective." is exactly what I have been talking about. The sources only added mentioned the gender inequality in Korea in the article, did not make any link or relation to the topic, but yet is being observed as a background. It is adding original perspective when adding this to the background tab, when the fact is not proven by an objective evidence. We can't be certain if they added the information to criticize the anti feminist movement, or provide background information from how they were put. Also, for my personal experiences, I've never pushed them to the argument. I've always put that they are not credible, and it's just my experience, so we'll move on with that, or something similar to that. "I believe that the line "In 2021, a woman was murdered or targeted for murder, on average, every 1.4 days or less." is also unnecessary for the topic, as Korea's homicide rate is quite low(average 0.5 per 100,000), even compared to the other developed nations(Examples: U.S having 5.8 per 100,000, Canada having 2.0 per 100,000)." I thought I gave citation, but I think I forgot to bring one. And you can see it in List of countries by intentional homicide rate too. Korea's murder rate was 0.531, and U.S was 5.863, UK was 1.148, and no other OECD nations has lower homicide rates other than Japan. Also regarding your "I find your editing disruptive because you are unwilling to satisfy or understand Wikipedia:Verifiability.", I haven't edited the article from the things you pointed out after that. On ""The social inequality is exacerbated by gender conflicts in the country" is a recap preface of that paragraph. It doesn't need citations.", it has already been talked about before, and agreed that it needs some changes. There is no poll or whatsoever to prove that it is widely agreed. If you don't like how the sentence was put, then it's fine. But we do need to change the sentence. For the donation, Kukmin Ilbo is a reliable source, and often referred to as one of the 12 전국종합일간지 by many. However, Kukmin Ilbo was not mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea, so I've just added a talk about that. And just as you said, "Wikipedia's job is to summarize it without adding original interpretation.". Someone123454321 (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::I've put up RfC since this is going nowhere. I'm adding that failing to satisfy verifiability is just the biggest issue. You also evade consensus building by making edits ahead regardless of what others tell you. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::RFC good move; think we should get more eyes on these discussions. Similar for future conflicts with this user.

::::::::::::::::::::Exhausting dealing with Someone123454321; need more feedback from multiple people to verify what's appropriate/inappropriate behavior. I'd participate more but not a lot of brain energy lately. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Strongly agree with Emiya Mulzomdao on AI. Not a good habit to use AI for Wikipedia policy. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1752973357}}

{{rfc|soc|rfcid=3FD3F47}}

The article's background section has references that mention South Korea's gender equality issues. Is their coverage pertinent or substantial enough to be included here? 00:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This RfC concerns the current first paragraph of the background section. The two references following the sentence {{tq|The country's gender pay gap was described to be the widest among OECD economies}} are the focus of this RfC.

• [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/opinion/international-world/korea-emoji-feminism-misogyny.html The Little Symbol Triggering Men in South Korea's Gender War] - The New York Times
• [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2621gzvkdo 'I got death threats when men thought I put feminist gesture in video game'] - BBC

A question was raised by one user who states their coverage is either not pertinent to the topic of the article or cited in the wrong section. This RfC seeks to address how these references should be present, and whether they should be removed from here. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)