Talk:Finger-pinching conspiracy theory

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feminism

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

NPOV tag

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):

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: 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.
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.
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 NYT opinion piece and 이혜미 column. I'm spotting a number of others.

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

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]