Talk:4B movement

Not radical movement

if men can dictate that a woman cannot have abortions from rape or is a child, then 4b is not radical. If men are not held accountable for the rape, or murder, or other forms of torture: then 4b is not radical. For me to engage in 4b: is not anti men, my brain is past that knee jerk reaction. Greateagle17 (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

IDK crap about Korean gender relations, and am just some nerd from Chicago who stumbled across this page, but if you consider "radical" not as a pejorative, but just as a description, it is a pretty radical departure from the norm for all of human history to just say no more love/romance, period. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This would seemingly imply that monks and priests are radical sexists for taking vows of chastity. I wouldn't describe it as radical until they start doing actual majorly radical actions. N7o2h3 (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not about our own judgements of what is radical & isn't. Within South Korea, the 4B movement is certainly seen as an extreme movement. Therefore, it should be classified as such to reflect the culture in which it exists, not the culture of the observers. Itzybella8 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide any indication that 4B is considered radical to the average person? N7o2h3 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The only people whose opinion matters is Koreans, because 4B is a Korean movement. It being non-radical to someone like an American is irrelevant. If Koreans find it radical, then this wiki page should label it as radical. 99.159.19.180 (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the late response. I believe there is a miscommunication of sorts between us. Radical feminism is a specific philosophy/academic tradition. As such the article should reflect if this movement falls under said philosophy/academic tradition before calling it radical. N7o2h3 (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"Radical feminism is a specific philosophy/academic tradition"

The philosophy varies between countries. The rebuttal is the same: it irrefutably falls under radical feminism in Korea, and that is all that matters. 208.82.97.132 (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Just in:

4B originated from feminist Twitter groups during 2017-2018 and they documented their beliefs on the Korean site (similar to Wikipedia) www.femiwiki.com

Here, they EXPLICTELY state that 4B is a radical ideology. https://femiwiki.com/w/4B

The CREATORS THEMSELVES... the SOURCE THEMSELVES call it radical. "The motto of radical feminism, which means non-marriage, non-childbirth, non-relationship, and non-sex." 🤣🤣🤣🤣 note that this wiki page was made in 2018 (you can see for yourself) which predates the year Google claims 4B was made (2019) and every other source that exists in this Wikipedia page. This is the root source, from the creators themselves. 208.82.97.132 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding to my recent comment about only Koreans opinion being relevant:

Even feminist groups in Korea consider it radical.

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/11/07/radical-feminism-paves-way-resurgent-south-korean-womens-movement/ 99.159.19.180 (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is not anti-men, but my personal viewpoints are irrelevant. In South Korea, it is very much seen as a radical movement. Itzybella8 (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"if men can dictate that a woman cannot have abortions from rape or is a child, then 4b is not radical."

> Abortion was decriminalized in South Korea by court order in 2021.

"If men are not held accountable for the rape, or murder, or other forms of torture: then 4b is not radical"

> Rape, murder, and/or other forms of torture are illegal in South Korea. See Article 297 of the Criminal Act.

All these arguments are based on false premises, hence, it is a radical movement. 208.82.97.132 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The unreliable source used is a website run by the Catholic Church's Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions. Find a reliable source, e.g. a major South Korean or international news agency. Jwuthe2 (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/

Science denial won't get you far 208.82.97.132 (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I hope I don't see anymore vandalism from you: I added an international news agency (AsiaNews) as a source, just like you requested. Also added a Stanford&Harvard source (plus a few more). Further removal will result in a report for vandalism. 208.82.97.132 (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policy surrounding contentious labels like "radical": MOS:LABEL. It doesn't matter what we or South Korean society thinks; a lot of debate in this thread is ultimately pointless. What matters is what the majority of reliable sources call it. If they use the term "radical", then so do we. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

From the first sentence in what you linked: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia". Read what you link.

These are guidelines, not rules. If the word choice is justified, then it is justified.

"What matters is what the majority of reliable sources call it"

Korean sources consistently label is radical. Take the advice of what you linked and let go of your bias (your bias of only considering western sources on a non-western movement).208.82.97.132 (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Global Feminisms, 1850 to Present

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 September 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LakersGoat, Smcusher, Kiggykissy, Atlas002, Tiazjane (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sonadav., Maisygreen, Beefpatty06, LilIlyich, Johnyha.

— Assignment last updated by Cliopentimento (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Explaining the removal of the "Result of 4B" Section

Result of 4B movement

Korean people don’t know much about the 4b movement. On the Korean internet, the 4B movement is used as a meme about femcel. In 2024, English-speaking users on TikTok claimed that Korea's low birth rate was due to the 4B movement. However, contrary to their claims, the influence of feminism is decreasing in Korea.

This section, at least in the way it's presented, seems completely unnecessary. It points out that Korean people don't know about the movement without providing a source, while in a previous part of the same page the movement's participants range up until 50,000, that is a considerable amount of people.

The second sentence mentions that there are memes about the movement in Korean social media. I question the importance of that fact. Almost everything can be a meme at this point, should we point out on every page that there were memes made about a certain thing?

The fourth sentence mentions that "the influence of feminism is decreasing in Korea". That is a big statement that needs strong evidence and citations. The article that was provided? Nothing to do with it. It discusses the difficulties that women who describe themselves as feminist in Korea face, and it does admit that the movement's growth has stagnated compared to the growth around 2015, but the word "influence" means more than growth. The article also says (translated to English) “The existence of backlash is paradoxically evidence of existence,” she added, “If it were an entity that did not need to be checked, politicians would not have come forward to ‘abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family.’” So I would mark this citation to defend the initial statement as inconclusive, at best. Sapienz12 (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you can't read the Korean Internet because you don't know Korean.

Then, I will show you an English video

[[1]]

The 4b movement is not popular in Korea.

And About decreasing feminism in Korea, see Feminism in South Korea#Collapse of feminism in Korea Acolex2 (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to be Korean, since this is the English page, after all, to point out that the previous section was badly written in the for the standards of Wikipedia. Now, regarding your revision, I think it's a big improvement, since the information is presented in a relatively unbiased manner.

Also, I'm not trying to debate the matter, but there's a difference between contesting if something is true or just questioning if you're using the best source for it. For example, the video you just sent has a total sample size of *1*. When presented alone, it's not a good source.

Some of the sources in the second link you posted involve actual statistics so, at least at face value, they seem more faithful to reality, although I'd question the importance of some other points there, but that would need another discussion in that page. Sapienz12 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, while I also do not aim to debate source quality, the linked section Acolex2 provided was a very recent addition that they appeared to have penned and added themselves. While my intention is not to question the applicability of 4B information sources discussed here (or in the linked page, for that matter), it may not be good form to cite a page section that an editor themselves has claimed authorship of, especially when the section on that page appears to have caused some contention regarding the necessity of its inclusion. CelsiusMail (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Citing TikTok in a discussion thread is not a great look. You're also clearly pushing a perspective here. To be clear, I am not expressing agreement/disagreement with your perspective; I am doubting the quality of your contributions overall. This is a contentious topic that deserves high quality work. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"that deserves high quality work"

Most of the sources are op-ed western sources. Not much better than some Tiktok video. Anyone can publish some Medium article to make it look fancy and put it up here as a source. You are attacking the platform the message was delivered in, not the message itself (which BTW is a logical fallacy). 208.82.97.132 (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Op-eds are way above Tiktok (not everyone can publish an op-ed in the NYT/WSJ for instance), but I agree, also not very good.

And attacking the platform is perfectly valid on Wikipedia. It's literally what conversations are supposed to be. The vast majority of analytical work on articles is supposed to be "What are the most reliable sources, and how can we fairly represent what those sources are saying"? seefooddiet (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

"The 4b movement is not popular in Korea"

It is also dangerous to even come across as a feminist in Korea, as there is rampant assault against women who even come across as feminist https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/05/113_362671.html

And then we have the westerners here in denial that 4B is radical in Korea :) 208.82.97.132 (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

What we have on this article are people on both sides of Korea's gender war pushing POV while not following Wikipedia policy. It's not just this article, it's on others too. seefooddiet (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Femwiki

I saw this issue after it was raised at WP:RSN#Femiwiki.com, it is not a reliable source and is not usable by policy. It can't be seen as a primary source for the claim it created the term, as it's not a reliable source per WP:UGC. Any editor interest in discussing it's reliability should join the thread at RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Also 208.82.. I suggest you read WP:NOTVANDALISM, inappropriately accusing other editors of vandalism is not a good idea. Also WP:EDITWAR is a useful read. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Accusing your of vandalism isn't a good idea.

And carrying out the vandalism isn't a good idea either. 208.82.97.132 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

As someone's who cares about policy I suggest you read WP:3RR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

If you won't stop edit warring and making aspersions you'll likely end up blocked. I'm editing in good faith, and looking for you to discuss the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to understand what is considered vandalism on Wikipedia I suggest reading WP:VANDALISM, because this isn't it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

You realize you are just selectively reading bit and parts of the policy, right? The very links you provide apply to you too, and parts of the policy support this citation being included. You are also edit warring.

This is not a clear cut case. I can see reasons to remove it and reasons to include it as a source according to Wiki policies.

Since this is not a clear cut case, it is especially prone to biases 99.159.19.180 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I seems that you are both 208.168 and 99.159, as shown by you reverting with 208.168 here[2] and warning Emiya Mulzomdao about the revert here as 99.159[3]. I suggest you self revert. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

If you won't self revert I'll have to raise this at WP:ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead. I see it as a primary source and so it is allowed under WP:PSTS 99.159.19.180 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming the connection. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't confirm the connection. I confirmed you raising it to WP:ANI. 99.159.19.180 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I see another IP editor making the same arguments with the same language has reverted again. I'll wait for them to join the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

You are bordering conspiracy theory territory 99.159.19.180 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the two of your raise the same the exact same point with the exact same language and randomly act in coordination. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

That's called bias 99.159.19.180 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what 208.168 says, they seem to have gone quiet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record:

Who invented 4B is a niche topic.

The Femi wiki source used is the first revision of the page made in 2018. The first revision was written by Baeck Ha-na. Baeck Ha-na and Jung Se-young are informally seen as the "leaders" or the "women behind" South Korea's no marriage trend. Where is the proof that Baeck Ha-na wrote the first revision of that Femi wiki article? She said she wrote it in a Twitter post. That won't be an acceptable citation, and so this kind of becomes a chicken and egg problem (there are secondary sources in the form of Korean TV streams, but these are hard to find). Wikis policies make it hard to provide citations for niche topics. This makes it a question of whether we want this 4B article to choose the safer route of possibly better aligning with Wiki policies or wanting this 4B article to better align with the truth/what is most accurate.

Personally, I think people who didn't grow up in Korea should be banned from contributing to this article due to the bias. 99.159.19.180 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of how hard it is to provide reliable sources for verification, providing them is not optional. As to whether the article should match what you consider the truth or what is verifiable see WP:NOTTRUTH. WP:VERIFICATION is a core policy, and all articles are expected to follow it.

If you can show Baeck Ha-na or Jung Se-young are subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. per WP:SPS, then WP:ATTRIBUTION might be possible, but it is on you to show that that is the case.

As to banning edits from editing specific articles based on race, it's a very bad idea I suggest you don't repeat. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sensing bad faith from you.

"As to banning edits from editing specific articles based on race"

You are (I hope not intentionally) conflating race with nationality. 99.159.19.180 (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether you mean race or nationality, the idea is looked on with little favour. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you show that the authors are "subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"? It would make this situation a lot clearer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

False premise.

That's irrelevant as the 4B movement refers to a movement, not an academic field.

Analyzing the effects of the 4B movement may be an academic field. Analyzing what lead to the 4B movement may be an academic field. The 4B movement itself is not. There are several logical fallacies in play on your end.

Refer to the Proponents section of the 4B movement. 99.159.19.180 (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding, you have done several borderline bad faith things.

1) Committed strawman fallacy by incorrectly saying that I said that only Koreans should be allowed to contribute to this article (banning contributions based on race). I never said that.

2) Stirring up conspiracy theories like saying me and some other user are the same person.

3) Incorrectly citing irrelevant Wikipedia policies, seemingly to attempt to add legitimacy to your comments.

4) Made post on my user page warning me about edit warring. This is irrational as I have only edited this page once whereas you edited it 4 times and reverted 3 times in the past 24 hours alone.

For these reasons, I will stop interacting with you. Do whatever you have to do. 99.159.19.180 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

1/. Whether you mean Koreans or Koreans nationals Wikipedia will not.be blocking editors based on either, and editor who do suggest such things don't last long.

2/. I have very correctly stated policy, you may also want to read WP:CIR at this point.

3/. All I have done is correctly site policy, policy describes how editing on Wikipedia works so stating it is the correct way of trying to work towards a consensus.

4/. WP:Communication is required, if you are not willing to discuss the issue I will assume you have withdrawn any objections. You can't go silent as a way to win an disagreement.

It is obvious that you care about this issue, but your edits must comply with how Wikipedia works. Either you need to find secondary sourcing, or show that the author are subject matter experts as laid out in WP:SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I can onky take silence as you withdrawing your objections. I'll wait awhile longer to give you a chance to respond and then edit accordingly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I side with ActivelyDisinterested here. Wanting only people from one geographical region to edit the article is a ridiculous ask; completely misaligned with Wikipedia's policies and values. seefooddiet (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)