Talk:Megalia

Recent additions
The recent edits by, 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)


 * 141.51.213.xxx has been vandalizing this article since 17:04, 6 January 2017. (141.51.213.73, 141.51.213.117, 141.51.213.137, 141.51.213.208 ) --ZERO2CT (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Edits that you disagree with are not vandalism. The version of the article which you seem to prefer is heavily non-neutral. Whilst it may be possible to incorporate some of the information you are putting forward (depending on the quality of the sources, which as I said above, I'm not qualified to judge), the manner in which that information is presented needs to be consistent with Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Blindly accusing anyone who disagrees with your version as a vandal is unproductive - kindly refrain from doing so. Yunshui 雲 水 15:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, i agree --ZERO2CT (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * but listen, 141.51.213.xxx deleted the many of contents in this article without any discussion(17:04, 6 January 2017), and if someone restore the contents(07:30, 18 January 2017‎ / 14:09, 23 January 2017 / 14:41, 23 January 2017‎ / 14:43, 23 January 2017‎) or just criticize Megalia(10:19, 21 January 2017‎), 141.51.213.xxx claimed that it was 'vandalism' and deleted it.(10:28, 18 January 2017 / 10:20, 21 January 2017 / 14:41, 23 January 2017‎ / 14:43, 23 January 2017‎). As shown in view history, rather 141.51.213.xxx blindly accusing anyone who disagrees with his(or hers) version as a vandal. and 141.51.213.xxx is not even participated in this discussion. i think 141.51.213.xxx is doing Vandalism. not just she(or he) disagrees with my version. --ZERO2CT (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * in 17:04, 6 January 2017, 141.51.213.xxx has deleted the bulk contents of the this article without discussion. The deleted contents has been added by many users and editors (including me). i'm not sure Wikipedia's Rules, but until the discussion is over this article should be maintained in past version‎, didn't it? --ZERO2CT (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I assume you're referring to this edit? That's useful, as it sums up the various areas that need to be discussed for inclusion. These would appear to be:
 * Should we describe Megalia as pro-women, or as anti-men (or both)?
 * Should we include a section on slang coined on Megalia? If so, should we describe individual terms, or just note that such slang exists? (see WP:MISC)
 * Should there be a criticism section? If so, should it be labelled as such? (WP:NOCRIT may be relevant)
 * Individually, should the three events mentioned in the criticism section be covered? Are the incidents specifically relevant to Megalia, or only tangentially related?
 * Should the Jayeon Kim story be included, and if so, how can it be neutrally reported? (WP:IMPARTIAL)
 * Is the Womad investigation relevant to an article about Megalia?
 * There are therefore a reasonable amount of elements that should be discussed, but hopefully some of these are fairly easy to address (the Womad adntifreeze investigation, for example, is not directly relevant to Megalia and as such should instead be in an article about Womad, if anywhere). Others may be more nuanced. Again, discussion of the sources is needed as well as the content; any Korean speaking editors who can provide further information would be welcomed. Yunshui 雲 水 16:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are so many rules in Wikipedia. There are many things I do not know. i will learn more about the rules of Wikipedia and come back. --ZERO2CT (talk) 17:26, 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. 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)


 * An important keyword has been left out of the article.
 * Megalians explain their conduct as "mirroring" (미러링). They mirror mysogynous name-calling (or visual material-posting) they find at Ilbe Storehouse, etc., to make a point. This mirroring is explicitly explained in practically every news source cited in the current version (3 6 7 8) and the omission must be deliberate POVing.


 * ZERO2CT's first draft says "kindergarten teacher admitting that she was a pedophile (actively saying that she wants to fuck the little kids)", but this is not really what is in the fnnnews report given.
 * Rather than to admit to having actual kiddie fantasies, this teacher issued a subsequent posting explaining that it was an act of "mirroring".
 * She was deliberately using the Jorini (좆린이) word (for young boys as sex objects) to parody the pervasive use of 로린이 Lorini or "Lolita girl" on Ilbe.
 * Thus, 112.171.4.46 citing the same source (its copy rerun at Naver) in wrote "More shckingly, she called her children "좆린이(Jonnini, a slang meaning fucking sexy lolita)", was only telling half the story.


 * Megalian slang words can be mentioned as long as they can be sourced, I suppose, but it should not artificially be made to appear more outlandish or numerous than the gender-switch counterpart vocabulary used at Ilbe Storehouse.

--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This seems like a very reasonable addition. --141.51.213.137 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Wording revised 06:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * /*Controversies*/ (as suggested by 141.51.213.137) - I revised the biased writing on the kindergarten teacher incident based on the news sources already given.
 * /*Criticism*/ ( floated the idea above). - The unattributed "..most other web communities are hostile to them" was removed and replaced with critiques paraphrased from fnnews and 10 Magazine piece. These are journalist's opinion (or his analysis of the prevailing view among netizens) though, rather than an academic/expert's which would be more desirable.--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The term "Controversial website" in the lede
(notifying recent editors other then reverting) brought up an issue on user talk:Idh0854 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)
 * I think it is fair to describe it as controversial. See this which says There's no doubt Megalia is controversial and confrontational.. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the reference to "controversial" here Jim1138 (talk) 06:56, 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. 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)


 * (From User talk:Idh0854)
 * The controversy related to slogan "Girls do not need a prince" of Megalia 4 in Facebook (it is a rather different to Megalia) is already over in South Korea. And that source is only until August, 2016, not now. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Idh0854 is obviously well aware of the BBC article (aka "August 2016" source), and is trying to sell this argument that the controversy is over the "Girls do not need a prince" T-shirt, and should now be considered passé. Well, the argument is completely invalid. The BBC piece very clearly connects Megalias's controversialness to its "logo" and other aspects as well. Please read the BBC piece over again.--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @Kiyoweap: "August, 2016" isn't mean now, because of now is "February, 2017". It is practically half year. So I think that BBC source is old. And this isn't a controversy anymore, because Korean has already the website like Womadic (Korean name is "워마드" Womadeu). (ko source), (en source), etc. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The website has come into attention specifically because its form of activism has generated controversy. The NPR article meta description says "Controversial online feminist movement Megalia has been pushing against sexism and harassment of women in South Korea". I don't see a problem with mentioning controversial here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:19, 1 February 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)


 * I think we spent enough time on this. "Controversial" is not overly derogatory or unduly negative.
 * If mainstream media sources such as a BBC or NPR apply the label, then that is sufficient WP:RS grounds to use it. Dissenters haven't made any compelling reasons why we shouldn't.


 * The BBC piece that's only six month shouldn't have to be accused of being outdated, unless you can produce more recent pieces that contradict it.
 * The Korean piece mentioned merely covers the story of Womad splintering off. This is a subset of Megalia who regard gay men who hide their sexual orientation and marry women to be victimizers, and feel  justifiable to out them to the public. This partition does not mean that the remaining Megalia members are then somehow cleansed of every other kind of controversial postings they made. The logic does not follow. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
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)
 * There are not many editors who follow Korean media, I'm afraid, so help would be needed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Weasel words
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)

Appropriate categories
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)