Talk:Chojoongdong

Attempts at improvement
This article is obviously still of poor quality by the standards of Western readers, as has been pointed out repeatedly. One of the problems is that most of the citations come from competitors of the CJD, who would hardly be expected to write objectively about them, and certainly not from the likes of MBC, who have a well established record of poor quality and dishonest yellow journalism (c.f. "P.D. Diary being sleazy and evasive"). I've removed some of the most egregious examples, though it would probably be better, as previous commenters have pointed out, to start from scratch.

notice
It seems that this article is 90% translation of ko:조중동(2009.3.17 version). In South Korea, the notability of this term is 100% certain. In Korean wikipedia, there were some discussions about the POV problem on the article, but no discussion about the notability arose.

If you can speak Korean, check this article for some more information. adidas (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "notability" of the term ChoJoongDong? It's not clear to me. If you want to help to improve this article, please let me know if you are making a criticism or not. If you are, I'd like to make improvements.User:Rawhiti25 (talk)23:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC).
 * chieck this if you can read Korean. It is a result from the most popular search engine in South Korea, Naver. It shows that the number of results of 'Chojoongdong' is over 60,000. I think it can be an evidence for you.


 * Also, I want you to note that the term 'Chojoongdong' is very common in South Korea. Use common sense might help. adidas (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality
Honestly, the quality of this article is terrible now. I worked on it to improve it a bit, but still needs major works. Yet it was even featured in a Korean newspaper. =( Dasony (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to be more specific about what makes it terrible. I'm happy to negotiate changes, but right now you are not being helpful. Please list points that you think are not factual and also list points that you think should be added. If you can't do these things, then there is no way forward.User:Rawhiti25 (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 11:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

Because it's highly POV, it's propagandistic, and is written by a non-native speaker for starters. For an English speaking reader already accustomed to high quality journalism and journalistic standards of objectivity, it is indeed a terrible article. Jayzames (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be grateful if you can show some details about this. I think WP is open for everyone, not only for native speakers, and it may be written by Korean native speaker, also based upon ko-WP article. I agree that this article is too critical and negative and I hope you to make it better. adidas (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I have never seen the three newspapers express "extreme conservative views" for at least the last 10 years. The Chosun Ilbo wrote an editorial in support of maintaining the Ministry of Gender Equality and all of them have expressed support for a more ethnically diverse society. If anything, "progressive" ethnic nationalists are more "conservative" in many ways than ChoJoongDong.

Second, English Wikipedia is, obviously enough, for English speakers. If you are less than fully competent in the language it would be better to check things with a native speaker, who also could tell you, as others already have, that this article is of such poor quality as to merit deletion. This is not an objective description of the way ChoJoongDong is regarded in Korean society. This kind of amateurish 선동 might pass muster in Korean, but English is a whole other world and attempts at propagandization will be regarded with much greater skepticism.

It especially needs better sources in English, not just the claims of some NGO. You can read Wikipedia's guidelines for citation and what constitutes a credible source.

I don't particularly like or dislike the major newspapers, and agree that social attitudes towards the newspapers are a notable issue. Do not automatically assume, however, that English readers will be sympathetic to the anti-ChoJoongDong movement, this is written as if that's already the case.

I don't mind if you do 선동 on Korean wikipedia, just keep it there.Jayzames (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I am not a main editor of this article both in English and Korean. Did I do propaganda? If you want to blame someone about 'propaganda', it's not fit for me, I think.


 * If you really read CJD for 10 years, you must have found that they don't like liberalism governments. I don't want to say that's a kind of 'extreme conservative view'(I don't want to argue about political views), but it's true that they support conservative GNP for decades. adidas (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You asked for more details. That CJD didn't like "Korean liberal" governments i won't dispute. So what? That in itself does not constitute an "extreme conservative" view. There are no details whatsoever about what constitutes an "extreme conservative" point of view, or why the CJD are especially "right wing." Anybody can look at their editorial page and find nothing terribly extreme there. Just today I opened the Joongang Ilbo and it praised the opening of bike paths in Seoul, a typically "liberal" support for alternative means of transportation that would never appear in the "conservative" Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Again your English doesn't appear adequate as you appear to be confused about what "original research" is versus POV. I think you can argue that the CDJ conspiracy theory is POV, but I've provided citations in English, and I think describing cjd as "evil collusion" satisfies anybody's reasonable definition of "conspiracy theory." (you can look up the definition on Wikipedia too) Hint, CJD are all technically COMPETITORS with each other, implying collusion would require "conspiracy." It doesn't ipso facto imply any moral judgment on the validity of CJD as a conspiracy theory, it just says belief in a unanimous and monolithic "CJD" is "roughly similar" to a conspiracy theory. I think that is a non-controversial assertion.

If you as a non native speaker are going to continually interfere in such clumsy fashion with good faith attempts to improve the article by people who actually know what they're doing I don't see how you're actually contributing. Stick to the Korean side, where you may actually be competent. In English, it's clear to us why this article is of inferior quality, and you've been repeatedly told why. It's very POV, amateurish, and the level of English is poor.Jayzames (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this article is not neutral topic. Because this is social issue in South Korea. I saw this article in Koran Wikipedia, there are a lot of criticism about CJD so it can not be neutral.Dhtpgus90 (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Nepotism
Nepotism part has a lot of problems. It is more like a critisism for their monopoly.--Alf (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It imples not only a criticism against their monopoly, also for the tight(even sticky) relationship with real powers in politics and business. adidas (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to say exactly what you mean. Do you mean that the heading "Nepotism" is wrong? Please suggest a different heading that you feel better reflects the content of that section. Thank you. User:Rawhiti25 (talk)23:33, 30 April 2009(UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC:POV discussion
The AfD discussion on this article requested only a discussion, not deletion. AfD is not the proper forum for such a discussion, so I am bringing it here. Please view the comments already made at Articles for deletion/Chojoongdong and continue the discussion here. KuyaBriBri Talk 16:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It is one of very popular abbreviation in South Korea. I understand some topics like this may be hard to achieve NPOV, but that cannot be the reason for deletion. If you think this article is representing only one-side of view, you can fix it. adidas (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chojoongdong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723001610/http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0000919784 to http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0000919784

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chojoongdong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223145245/http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=103042 to http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=103042
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403015743/http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0001628262 to http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0001628262
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newssafety.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6706%3Asouth-korea-journalist-assaulted-in-demonstration&catid=134%3Aasia-pacific-media-safety&Itemid=100525

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)