Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The poster

Can any one please add poster to this page? I tried but failed Xaxaxaxaa (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Finrell ausi

@Finrell ausi: You have violated the 3RR, which states that no editor shall perform more than 3 reverts on the same page in 24 hours. There can be possible sanctions as a result. In your edit summary, you said group of pop culture enthusiasts following the drama means its a cult its understood... for example group of comic readers following manga means its a cult like that... wrong. No original research is allowed on Wikipedia. The source must explicitly state that there is a prevalent cult following in order for it to be featured on the article. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

On the top I want to remove the part that says criticized for screenplay which is correct but the performances part is not correct and probably left by someone with malicious intent towards the actors starring this series. There was no performances critic thats the only thing I wanna change. Thanks in advance Trust12345 (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Netflix rating

Am curious why we there is a fight over the the king eternal monarch netflix world ratings... Sath edited it well with proof... Pls do not remove again when it is updated... It is a confirmed update Surozee (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Deemed unreliable here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#Is Flix Patrol reliable? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed updates to second paragraph of page

Hi, I would like to make the following changes to the second paragraph of the whole page. The current paragraph is repeated below:
"Despite hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, renowned screenwriter,[10] extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget,[11][12] the series received criticism for its screenplay, directing, editing, and various controversies leading to lower-than-expected TV viewership ratings in Korea.[13][14][15] Contrary to that, the series has maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks since its first airing,[16][17][18] and was termed as a "hit Netflix drama" by GMA News Online,[19] and South China Morning Post also mentioned it as a "hit Korean drama series" due to its popularity overseas.[20]"

Most probably because of all the edit wars, the second paragraph is clumsy, sloppy and pathetic. The controversies and criticisms are already mentioned in the Reception and Controversy sections. The high production budget is already mentioned in the Production section as well as in the summary at the right side of the page. Besides, the big production budget has become a non-issue because the drama was able to reach its break-even point even before airing as mentioned in the Production section. In addition, the production company, Studio Dragon, cited the drama as a major reason for its stunning second quarter performance, as Hancinema announced, "In a report released on August 6th detailing Studio Dragon's financial performance over the second quarter, the drama production studio revealed a record-breaking 135 million dollars in total sales. This represented a 26% increase over the same time period the previous year... Three dramas in particular have driven much of this growth- "Crash Landing on You", "The King: Eternal Monarch", and "It's Okay to Not Be Okay", all of which have been very successful internationally on Netflix. "The King: Eternal Monarch" likely deserves most of the credit, as it is the only one of these dramas to have aired entirely during the second quarter. The news is ironic, given how a previous report had investors cash out of Studio Dragon due to the drama's perceived poor performance."

Thus there's no point in discussing production costs in the summary. Even kdramas that incurred higher production costs than The King Eternal Monarch do not have such information in their summary sections. In fact, it is extremely sloppy and senseless to put information in the summary that would be nullified in a later section.

Finally, quoting newspapers just because they put the one word "hit" to describe the show is pathetic. I would therefore like to replace the second paragraph with the following:

"The drama maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks since it first aired. It ranked 9th in the World Ranking chart of Global Hallyu Issue Magazine vol.37, the only Korean drama in the global Top 10 list. It dominated the Top 10 lists in several countries including Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Singapore while it was airing." Due to its international success, its production company, Studio Dragon, declared, "The King: Eternal Monarch likely deserves most of the credit" for the company's record-breaking second quarter earnings.

Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: I'm sorry but all you did is remove an negative statements and only kept the positive. Wikipedia is neutral and is not a fan page. I know you are a huge fan of the series but that doesn't mean you can remove all negative statements and keep only the positive statements that fit your narrative. Also about the production cost, that is a fact and I added a sentence indicating the series recoup its total production cost, though the profit was not announced for us to know how much it grossed. Also, the production cost fact is a lead up to indicate that the series faced "criticism for its screenplay, directing, editing, and various controversies leading to lower-than-expected TV viewership ratings in Korea". It is a fact and removing it is censorship. Also recouping doesn't mean the series did well and profited. There is only 1 negative fact on top, and you seem to forget that it is followed by 2 positive sentence. So everything is balanced with no opinion dominating over the other. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: If you had checked my changes more carefully, you would have seen that I removed sentences that called the drama a "hit". A blind fan, as you are making me out to be, would have clung to those statements no matter what. I made the changes to make the paragraph less sloppy. See which of the current and my proposed versions look less like a tabloid article. The construction of the second paragraph itself is off, it is jarring. Starting the second paragraph with "Despite" makes the reader wonder about the defensive tone. Add to that the "Contrary" sentence and you get a paragraph that sounds more like it belongs in a tabloid than in an encyclopedia. Also see the pages of other kdramas. Most of them have no second paragraphs. Those that do feature the kdramas' successes. Finally, compare the pages of other kdramas with this. The pages of other kdramas are not half as critical as this. What makes this drama so dammed as to suffer such negativity as this page? All I'm asking is for a FAIR treatment of this topic. We might as well remove the second paragraph entirely if detractors like you cannot stop themselves from using Wikipedia as a tool for a smear campaign. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: If you wanted to change the structure and grammar but kept the the fact stating that it received lower than expected TV ratings, I would not have minded, but you keep deleting everything and keeping only the positive. You keep repeating the "fair" word but fail to read that Wikipedia is neutral. It is not a fan page that only needs the positive at the top, there is no such rule, see Guardians (2017 film) and Dirty Grandpa. Wikipedia should not be censored and used for Advertising, marketing or public relations, and should have a Neutral point of view. You referring to negative facts as "smear campaign" shows that you are biased. And it is your version that is a tabloid article, trying to make the series seem like it was a hit everywhere, though it did not succeed on TV and lots of Korean media and critics criticized it. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

For the Third opinion, please also see User talk:Explicit#The King: Eternal Monarch where Lizzydarcy2008 admits to being biased saying, " I admit I admire this show which is why I looked it up on Wikipedia and was dismayed at the negative lean of this page.".

Also a summary: Lizzydarcy2008 have multiple times removed this well-source paragraph (which has been now edited to include the positive first but still keep that it received low TV ratings) that has been on the page for months, "Despite hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, renowned screenwriter, extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget, the series received criticism for its screenplay, directing, editing, and various controversies leading to lower-than-expected TV viewership ratings in Korea. Contrary to that, the series has maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks since its first airing, and was termed as a "hit Netflix drama" by GMA News Online, and South China Morning Post also mentioned it as a "hit Korean drama series" due to its popularity overseas."

and replaced it with this misquoted and badly sourced one that relies on the unreliable flixpetrol, "The drama maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks since it first aired. [This is the only correct fact that is already in the previous paragraph] It ranked 9th in the World Ranking chart of Global Hallyu Issue Magazine vol.37, the only Korean drama in the global Top 10 list. [Unrliable as the data is from flixpetrol which was deemed unreliable by Wikipedia] It dominated the Top 10 lists in several countries including Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Singapore while it was airing. [Again using the same unreliable source that has data from flixpetrol which was deemed unreliable by Wikipedia] Due to its international success, its producer, Studio Dragon, declared it likely deserving of most of the credit for the production company's record-breaking second quarter earnings. [Production company never said that, they just reported the numbers. Only 1 website claiming this and there is no way prove it is factual as even that 1 website doesn't know and used the word "likely". Though this last sentence has been edited and is in the reception section as, "On August 6, Studio Dragon announced their financial performance over the second quarter with a record-breaking 135 million dollars in total sales, a 25.9% increase over the same period of time last year, accrediting the boost to license sales of works such as Crash Landing on You, The King: Eternal Monarch, and It's Okay to Not Be Okay, with Hancinema claiming, "'The King: Eternal Monarch' likely deserves most of the credit, as it is the only one of these dramas to have aired entirely during the second quarter."" This series was not the sole contributor and it is not an achievement that needs to be included at the top (this is the the production company's page), if it was the sole contributor to the increase, I would agree to adding that fact at the top, but it is not.]

I tried as much as I can to restructure and re-phrase the top sentence without censoring facts and keeping "but received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies" as the only negative statement. The current version reads: Following the release of the first episode, the series set a record for SBS’s highest Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks,[10][11] with GMA News Online terming it a "hit Netflix drama" due to its popularity overseas.[12] The series hailed as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, screenwriter, extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget,[13][14] but received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: Are you saying that anybody who admires a show cannot be fair? You really should let go of prejudices. I removed two sentences that called the show a "hit" because they sounded like something written for a tabloid, not to mention being pathetic that a mere mention of the word "hit" would hold that much water. A blind fan would not let go of any sentence that calls the show a "hit". You removed sentences about the show being #1 in several countries just because the information came from Flixpatrol yet where did those newspapers that called the show a "hit" get their data from? Netflix has not released raw viewership information yet. Flixpatrol yearly ranking might not be accurate because they are missing data early in the year, but the daily Top 10 lists per country come from Netflix, the only data that Netflix is releasing for now and are probably more accurate than Nielsen ratings. As noted before, all other Kdramas I checked that have second paragraphs contain an outline of the dramas' successes in that paragraph (note, I checked other Kdramas, not just any other shows, to have apples to apples comparison). Yet, the second paragraph of The King Eternal Monarch sounds like another one of those web sites that have been trying to sabotage it, making a big deal of its big production costs leaving out the important information that the production costs have been recouped even before the show started. The success of The King Eternal Monarch is tied to its success in Netflix, but as aforementioned, Netflix has only released their daily Top 10 lists that Wikipedia considers unreliable because the information is being released by Flixpatrol. Does this even make sense? Anyway, so we need to look for other sources of information about the show's success on Netflix. The HanCinema article reported that the show is one of the major contributors of Studio Dragon's stunning second quarter earnings and even singled it out as likely deserving most of the credit. If that is not a clear indication of the show's success, I don't know what is. Is there suddenly a rule that a kdrama has to be the sole contributor of its production studio's record-breaking second-quarter earnings to prove it is a success? If you don't like Hancinema's article, here is a better sourced one:

'Business Korea reported, "Studio Dragon delivered revenue of KRW161.4bn (+25.9%YoY) and OP of KRW16.9bn (56.3%YoY), beating the market consensus by 3.4%/4.5%. Programming revenue reached a record; non-captive revenue skyrocketed 646% YoY but captive revenue fell 30.5% YoY. Drama sales climbed 9.3% YoY on average to KRW470mn per work amid the growing popularity of K-dramas, particularly The King: Eternal Monarch." '

I'm not saying that those well-sourced information currently in the second paragraph should be entirely removed. They should instead be moved to their appropriate sections on the page where they belong.

Following the convention of listing kdrama successes in the second paragraph (it seems this is the main reason some kdramas have second paragraphs - to showcase their successes), here is a proposed text:
'The drama maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks since it first aired. It dominated the Top 10 lists of most watched Netflix TV shows in several countries including Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Singapore while it was airing. According to Business Korea, Studio Dragon, the production company of the drama, beat "the market consensus by 3.4%/4.5%. Programming revenue reached a record; non-captive revenue skyrocketed 646% YoY... Drama sales climbed 9.3% YoY on average to KRW470mn per work amid the growing popularity of K-dramas, particularly The King: Eternal Monarch."' Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: You say "Are you saying that anybody who admires a show cannot be fair? You really should let go of prejudices" and then say "I'm not saying that those well-sourced information currently in the second paragraph should be entirely removed. They should instead be moved to their appropriate sections on the page where they belong." You say it should be in its "appropriate sections" but keep removing it there too. You removed "received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies" from the top and "The rating hit it lowest at 5.2% on the 11th episode, and the series struggled to pass the 6-8% viewership rating on later episodes" from the reception section multiple times. I'm not saying your are biased because you like the shows, I'm saying it because your edits reflect that you are not willing to allow any negative facts about the series's rating to be seen and want to hide the fact that it got bad ratings, by repeatedly removing any mention of bad ratings.

"Flixpatrol yearly ranking might not be accurate because they are missing data early in the year," I never said it is unreliable because it is missing data from the start of the year (it was only added on April, so why would I say that? I think you are speaking about another editor), it is unreliable because it changes each day, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#Is Flix Patrol reliable?. The series is no longer in the top ten. Side note, I assume "It's Okay to Not Be Okay" could actually over take TKEM because it will be added to Netflix Europe and Middle East next week. Back to my point, Money Heist and Dark (TV series) are currently the top 2 series on you beloved website flixpetrol, but the Wikipedia page doesn't say it trended in XXX countries because it trending on Netflix is not an achievement.

"all other Kdramas I checked that have second paragraphs contain an outline of the dramas' successes in that paragraph", Korean drama pages should not be the standard, go look at Wikipedia:Good articles instead, Money Heist. Lots of the Korean drama pages need improving. See Game of Thrones (season 8), they did not try to hide the negative criticism and be biased. The "received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies" is important because it shows that there are also criticism and controversies, it also summarizes and introduced the lower section. Moreover, it does show that the drama was not well-received on TV.

No to your proposed text, it is only positive and no negative, which is misleading and biased. 'The drama maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks since it first aired. It dominated the Top 10 lists of most watched Netflix TV shows in several countries including Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Singapore while it was airing. [Comes from flixpetrol. Again unreliable and also not an acheivent as it did not last long and is not even trending anymore compared to other series. Money Heist and Dark (TV series) are currently the top 2 series on you beloved website flixpetrol, but the Wikipedia page doesn't say it trended in XXX countries because it trending on Netflix is not an achievement.] According to Business Korea, Studio Dragon, the production company of the drama, beat "the market consensus by 3.4%/4.5%. Programming revenue reached a record; non-captive revenue skyrocketed 646% YoY... Drama sales climbed 9.3% YoY on average to KRW470mn per work amid the growing popularity of K-dramas, particularly The King: Eternal Monarch."' [Is this Studio Dragon's page or what? Why add irrelevant info. Also, opinions should not be added as facts. This is Business Korea, give me where it says studio dragon said that. Isn't this sentence a better achievement "The series hailed as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, screenwriter, extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget"?]

Please stop trying to ruin the page and Wikipedia. You are not going God's work and helping Wikipedia like you claim on your page ("try to preserve the integrity of this site", as you say), instead, you are going against Wikipedia's guidelines. What would you gain by doing this? Are you paid, did you invest in this series? Why are obsessed on hiding its failure on TV? Wikipedia should not be censored and used for Advertising, marketing or public relations, and should have a Neutral point of view. Please read those guidelines. Don't keep saying this page as this or this page doesn't have that. Your view of thing being fair is skewed because you want everything to be positive and can't see that you are being unfair and refuse to follow guidelines. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: I removed the rating numbers in the reception section because they are duplication of the information in the Ratings section where they belong. I also removed duplication of the phrase "struggled with ratings". How many times do we have to present such information in the same section? In fact, I keep adding the phrase "The drama was beset with controversies and criticisms" that keeps getting removed. I keep moving the paragraph where the criticisms are detailed right after the phrase "The drama was beset with controversies and criticisms" so the paragraph flows more naturally. But my edits keep getting undone without any explanations why. Had somebody pointed out that there is a convention of putting praises before criticisms, I would have complied and edited the section accordingly.

The name of the ranking itself should clue anybody in that the ranking would change until the year is over. While we are in 2020, the Top 10 TV shows in the world in 2020 would likely be different from one day to the next. That is why the yearly ranking that I had proposed specified vol.37 of the magazine. At the time of printing vol.37, the show was in the 9th place and the only kdrama in the Top 10. That information will not change as of vol.37 date. As mentioned before, I am comparing this page with pages of other kdramas for apples-to-apples comparison. Other kdramas have the dramas' achievements in their 2nd paragraphs. So I proposed that information about the drama's performance as noted by vol.37 of the magazine. Note that my latest proposed text does not include this. It includes the Top 10 performance of the drama in each country. This information is more reliable in Flixpatrol than yearly stats. Money Heist and Dark don't have Ratings sections. Should we also remove the Ratings section from this page? Until this is done, I think it best to limit the comparison to that with other kdramas. Talking of other kdramas, other kdramas have also struggled with ratings. Why is such information not mentioned in their pages? In fact, it's Okay To not Be Okay and Backstreet Rookie performed even worse. Why don't their pages have that information?

That the drama is not well received on TV is clear in Reception, Controversy and Ratings sections. Should we also make this clear in Production and Soundtrack sections?

My latest proposed text is positive because the 2nd paragraph of kdramas highlight their achievements. Look at the pages of Crash Landing on You and Mr. Sunshine. In fact, as I noted earlier, that seems to be the purpose of additional paragraphs before the Table of Contents - to highlight the dramas' successes.

I am trying to make this page more FAIR and less sloppy. The reason I remove negative remarks is because the negative points are mentioned multiple times. I have been trying to remove the duplicates. The production budget is mentioned in this page 3 times. The ratings are both in the Reception and Ratings sections. You have two sentences in the same section that says "struggling with ratings". These negative comments do not need to be rammed down readers' throats. One mention of them is enough. The reason I keep adding positive remarks is because the positive remarks I add keep getting deleted. It seems the problem is not that I am trying to keep this page fair. It is that you have been trying to emphasize the negative aspects, pointing them out multiple times. You have accused me several times of doing the edits because I am a fan of this drama. Are you a fan of It's Okay To Not Be Okay? It has much worse ratings than The King Eternal Monarch but has a squeaky clean page. No 2nd paragraph or Reception section emphasizing criticisms and "lower-than-expected" ratings. Don't worry, I'm not the type to put redundant information in another section to stage a smear campaign. The Ratings section already clearly shows its dismal performance.

Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: OMG! Do you even read what I wrote? You keep repeating the same things again and again. Repeating things would not make them fact or true. It would convince no one.

1. You should not remove the rating because they are not duplicate. The ratings are explained above in the reception, the table is for the data.

2. "The drama was beset with controversies and criticisms" Shows you are biased. The word beset makes it seem like the drama was bullied and it is not neutral and is your opinion.

3. “While we are in 2020, the Top 10 TV shows in the world in 2020 would likely be different from one day to the next.“ then it is not an achievement and is not a significant accomplishment. Again unreliable and also not an acheivent as it did not last long and is not even trending anymore compared to other series. Money Heist and Dark (TV series) are currently the top 2 series on you beloved website flixpetrol, but the Wikipedia page doesn't say it trended in XXX countries because it trending on Netflix is not an achievement.

4. “At the time of printing vol.37, the show was in the 9th place and the only kdrama in the Top 10. That information will not change as of vol.37 date.” The fact that the numbers came from flixpetrol makes it unreliable, whether the rating changed or not.

5. “Money Heist and Dark don't have Ratings sections. Should we also remove the Ratings section from this page?” Because they did not air on TV. I know you want to remove the rating to hide that the series failed on TV. Please, please, stop being biased. You gain nothing from censoring Wikipedia. If you want only praise, go look for another websites. Wikipedia is not North Korea, censoring any criticism and only keeping praise.

6. “Talking of other kdramas, other kdramas have also struggled with ratings. Why is such information not mentioned in their pages? In fact, it's Okay To not Be Okay and Backstreet Rookie performed even worse. Why don't their pages have that information?” This is not an excuse to censor Wikipedia. Go write it then if you have sources that it struggle with the ratings.

7. “That the drama is not well received on TV is clear in Reception, Controversy and Ratings sections. Should we also make this clear in Production and Soundtrack sections?” God, have mercy! Do I have to reply to this nonsense? The only place that explains the rating is the reception section. The controversy doesn’t talk about the rating. The rating is for the data. You even contradicted yourself later any say it is only in 2 places.

8. “In fact, as I noted earlier, that seems to be the purpose of additional paragraphs before the Table of Contents - to highlight the dramas' successes.“ You are even starting to make up things. Give me the guidelines where it says you can only “highlight the dramas' successes” on the top part?

9. “The reason I remove negative remarks is because the negative points are mentioned multiple times. I have been trying to remove the duplicates.” It is not duplicated. The top summaries the article.

10. “The production budget is mentioned in this page 3 times.” It is a fact, what is wrong with mentioning the budget? It is very high compared to other Korean series. The writer’s name and actor’s name is mentioned multiple times, should we remove them too? This makes no sense.

11. “These negative comments do not need to be rammed down readers' throats.” God! The article is overly positive but if you call stating the fact that it struggled on TV “rammed down readers' throats”, then I suggest you just leave Wikipedia and look for a fan page.

12. “Are you a fan of It's Okay To Not Be Okay? It has much worse ratings than The King Eternal Monarch but has a squeaky clean page. No 2nd paragraph or Reception section emphasizing criticisms and "lower-than-expected" ratings.” No, I am not. I did not even watch it. But you are free to write about it if you come across any news articles. I might have worked on other pages if it was not for you ruining this page daily waisting my time to fix it.

Lastly, this is my last reply to you because I’m sick of this. You do not read anything I sent to you and you 100% proved that you are an obsessed fan that is biased and even wants to remove the rating table because you hate that it did not do well on TV. I am sure when the dispute resolution volunteers come, they will be shocked at how biased you are. If you don’t want to read the guidelines, then don’t and keep doing whatever you want, but I’ll still be here bring back the page to its neutral state daily whenever you mess it up. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: I keep repeating the same things over and over again because you are not listening. I'm actually tired of repeating myself.

1. You should not remove the rating because they are not duplicate. The ratings are explained above in the reception, the table is for the data.

Look at the numbers- 11.6%, 5.2%, 6-8% - these are all enumerated in the Ratings section. Why repeat these in the Reception section? I have not seen another kdrama page where rating numbers are mentioned outside the Ratings section where they belong. The Ratings section already contains misleading/inadequate information (according to Hancinema article, local viewership is not anymore a key metric) as it is, and yet we are even repeating them?

2. "The drama was beset with controversies and criticisms" Shows you are biased. The word beset makes it seem like the drama was bullied and it is not neutral and is your opinion.

Then change it to "met" or some other word you want. But don't keep undoing my edits by putting back redundant information.

3. “While we are in 2020, the Top 10 TV shows in the world in 2020 would likely be different from one day to the next.“ then it is not an achievement and is not a significant accomplishment. Again unreliable and also not an acheivent as it did not last long and is not even trending anymore compared to other series. Money Heist and Dark (TV series) are currently the top 2 series on you beloved website flixpetrol, but the Wikipedia page doesn't say it trended in XXX countries because it trending on Netflix is not an achievement.

That is your opinion. How many times has a kdrama been in the Top 10 yearly list worldwide? Tell me when this happened before. This probably happened to other countries several times already that is probably why it is not as big a deal for them.

4. “At the time of printing vol.37, the show was in the 9th place and the only kdrama in the Top 10. That information will not change as of vol.37 date.” The fact that the numbers came from flixpetrol makes it unreliable, whether the rating changed or not.

Flixpatrol numbers are not accurate, yes. But tell me why Flixpatrol numbers are considered unreliable. It's because the same url yields different results when invoked on different days. That is why it was important to mention that the information was in vl.37 of the magazine. Saying that in July, when vol.37 was being printed, the drama was in the top 9 in the yearly worldwide ranking, the only kdrama in the Top 10, is not wrong. By the way, the reference is not Flixpatrol, it is Global Hallyu Magazine. Why are you saying the numbers came from Flicpatrol?

5. “Money Heist and Dark don't have Ratings sections. Should we also remove the Ratings section from this page?” Because they did not air on TV. I know you want to remove the rating to hide that the series failed on TV. Please, please, stop being biased. You gain nothing from censoring Wikipedia. If you want only praise, go look for another websites. Wikipedia is not North Korea, censoring any criticism and only keeping praise.

That was sarcasm to underscore the point that other shows have different Wikipedia sections for a reason, e.g. they are not shown on TV. it was the reason I kept telling you to compare this page with those of other kdramas, yet you kept comparing this with other types of shows. Apples to apples.

6. “Talking of other kdramas, other kdramas have also struggled with ratings. Why is such information not mentioned in their pages? In fact, it's Okay To not Be Okay and Backstreet Rookie performed even worse. Why don't their pages have that information?” This is not an excuse to censor Wikipedia. Go write it then if you have sources that it struggle with the ratings.

We don't even need to see other sources. That information is in the Ratings section. Writing about them outside the Ratings section would just be redundant as I keep pointing out.

7. “That the drama is not well received on TV is clear in Reception, Controversy and Ratings sections. Should we also make this clear in Production and Soundtrack sections?” God, have mercy! Do I have to reply to this nonsense? The only place that explains the rating is the reception section. The controversy doesn’t talk about the rating. The rating is for the data. You even contradicted yourself later any say it is only in 2 places.

Another sarcasm since you seem to not understand why keeping the discussion of topics in their appropriate section is important for coherence and to prevent sloppiness. Keep the ratings in the Ratings section as pages of other kdramas do.

8. “In fact, as I noted earlier, that seems to be the purpose of additional paragraphs before the Table of Contents - to highlight the dramas' successes.“ You are even starting to make up things. Give me the guidelines where it says you can only “highlight the dramas' successes” on the top part?

This is based on my observations about other kdramas that have additional paragraphs before the Table of Contents, like Crash Landing on You and Mr. Sunshine. This is quite logical actually, that kdramas with notable achievements would highlight them before the Table of Contents.

9. “The reason I remove negative remarks is because the negative points are mentioned multiple times. I have been trying to remove the duplicates.” It is not duplicated. The top summaries the article.

Not duplicated? Three times production budget was mentioned in the page. And you keep forgetting or ignoring why this piece of information does not warrant being repeated in the 2nd paragraph. Please re-read my comments why. Two times the rating numbers were mentioned, in Reception and Rating. Two times "struggled with ratings" was mentioned in Reception section. Two times "lower-than-expected ratings" was mentioned in Reception section

10. “The production budget is mentioned in this page 3 times.” It is a fact, what is wrong with mentioning the budget? It is very high compared to other Korean series. The writer’s name and actor’s name is mentioned multiple times, should we remove them too? This makes no sense.

If you're mentioning the same thing about the actor, e.g. he is 6 ft tall, three times, yes, that is quite sloppy. Like mentioning the budget was 30 bwon three times in one page. Mentioning the budget and low ratings without immediately explaining what caused those and why they have become irrelevant smacks of smear campaign.

11. “These negative comments do not need to be rammed down readers' throats.” God! The article is overly positive but if you call stating the fact that it struggled on TV “rammed down readers' throats”, then I suggest you just leave Wikipedia and look for a fan page.

Look at other kdramas' pages, e.g. Backstreet Rookie and It's Okay To Not Be Okay. No other kdramas' pages are half as negative.

12. “Are you a fan of It's Okay To Not Be Okay? It has much worse ratings than The King Eternal Monarch but has a squeaky clean page. No 2nd paragraph or Reception section emphasizing criticisms and "lower-than-expected" ratings.” No, I am not. I did not even watch it. But you are free to write about it if you come across any news articles. I might have worked on other pages if it was not for you ruining this page daily waisting my time to fix it.

If repeating negative comments about a topic is your idea of fixing a page, you should have left others to fix it properly.

Lastly, this is my last reply to you because I’m sick of this. You do not read anything I sent to you and you 100% proved that you are an obsessed fan that is biased and even wants to remove the rating table because you hate that it did not do well on TV. I am sure when the dispute resolution volunteers come, they will be shocked at how biased you are. If you don’t want to read the guidelines, then don’t and keep doing whatever you want, but I’ll still be here bring back the page to its neutral state daily whenever you mess it up.

They would actually think you're prejudiced for insisting only obsessed fans would see how negative this page is. They would understand that anybody with a sense of justice would do what I am doing. They would also object to the use of Wikipedia for smear campaign.

You have been attacking me, alleging I am an obsessed fan or a sockpuppet, I think it's time to return the favor - are you party to this smear campaign? Are you getting compensated for ensuring this page remains negative?

Regarding the Rating section, if you took time to read and understand my comment, I did not propose to remove the Ratings section. (I would want to, but Nielsen ratings have become industry standard. I am hoping they would catch up with the times and include streaming traffic in their numbers). My comment was meant to underscore the reason I was comparing this page to other kdrama pages instead of the pages of other types of shows. I've already expounded on this earlier.

Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that the second paragraph has been updated as follows:
"Hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, screenwriter, extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget, the series set a record for SBS’s highest Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings following the release of the first episode and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks,[12][13] with GMA News Online terming it a "hit Netflix drama" due to its popularity overseas.[14] On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies."

The second paragraph should highlight the most important aspects of the article in addition to those already mentioned in the first paragraph. They should be verified true and not based on speculations. The current second paragraph cites reasons for the low ratings based on speculations. Attributing the low ratings only to criticisms and controversies is erroneous and had been soundly disproved by even members of the media previously critical of the series. There is another speculation for the low ratings - because the series recouped its production budget even before it aired, SBS found no incentive to promote it to raise its ratings. It turned out, the series was successful in the streaming market in South Korea. It went to the top of the charts in both Netflix South Korea and Wavve. Its success in Wavve is even included in the second paragraph itself. Korea Herald reported that Netflix achieved "record-high subscriptions in S. Korea in April" (http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200526000284) presumably due to the pandemic. It will be noted that the series started on April 17. Thus, competition from Netflix and Wavve most probably contributed to the low SBS ratings as well. As we can see, there are several other causes for the low ratings. Citing only criticisms and controversies as causes is incorrect. Unless there is a reliable source that will prove the low ratings were caused ONLY by criticisms and controversies, this paragraph contains misleading information.

The drama was even more successful in the international market. Because of its success, the drama was singled out as deserving credit for the record-breaking second-quarter earnings of its production company. Just let that sink in. This drama achieved success its detractors try to undermine under the bog of such pettiness like production budget that these detractors keep forgetting had already been recouped even before the show aired. The drama went to the top of Top 10 lists in several countries. This drama broke the glass ceiling for kdramas in several countries! Why are these notable achievements not highlighted in the second paragraph? The only mention of it in the paragraph is with this sloppy sentence, "with GMA News Online terming it a 'hit Netflix drama' due to its popularity overseas". Saying it was a "hit" violates the following rule for what to put in the lede section per MOS:INTRO, The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using subjective "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning" or "hit"). There are much better-sourced proofs about the drama's international success available. Why are we putting a lame testament to its success based on a web site calling it a "hit" show, with no statistics to prove it? For all we know, their basis might be the unreliable and inaccurate Flixpatrol yearly ranking.

May I therefore suggest the following text for the second paragraph:
"The series set a record for the highest Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings on SBS in 2020, though several factors including the surge of popularity of Netflix and Wavve in South Korea affected the domestic TV ratings in later weeks. The series made the Top 10 list of most watched TV shows on Netflix in several countries, ranking #1 in some of them. Vol 37 of Global Hallyu Issue Magazine reported it ranked 9th in the World Ranking list of most watched TV shows, the only Korean Drama in the Top 10 list. It maintained the #1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks. Due to its success, it was singled out as deserving credit for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of Studio Dragon, its production company."

Please note that the "Top 10 list" reference is the Global Hallyu Issue Magazine of Korean Foundation for International Culture Exchange (KOFICE), not Flixpatrol. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Updates to Reception Section

@CherryPie94: I'm putting them here as the notes I keep putting during edits seem to keep getting ignored:
1. The rating figures were removed as there is already a Rating section, no need to repeat them here. Even Crash Landing On you, with its stellar ratings, doesn't have rating figures in Reception section.
2. The paragraphs were re-arranged to be in chronological order. Note, all the references/sources were retained. Why is the chronological order always undone?
3. News report from Business Korea was added. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: 1. I restored those as they are well-sourced. No reason to remove them as they provide an explanation to the ratings and explain it got low rating compared to the start. 2. It doesn't have to be chronological cause the sentences do not have dates. This is not an event (fire, earthquake, war) for it to be chronological. Even when people read the section now, they would not know which was published first or later. Also, it makes no sense that whenever we add new criticisms or praise article, we have to keep editing the structure of the article because you want it chronological for some reason. Usually info about the ratings and the series achievements come first, then the praise and criticism. Also see Joker (2019 film)#Critical response, praise come first, but you have the first sentence in the reception to criticism. However, I did not change it and kept it however you want. 3. I only kept the last sentence because the first two were not related to the series at all, you should move it to Studio Dragon's page. Also, I edited the abbreviations so people understand. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94:

1. Repeating the figures, 11.6%, 5.2%, etc does not explain the reasons. The reasons are explained by this sentence, "The series was beset by controversies and criticisms." Details of controversies are in the Controversy section. Examples of criticisms are detailed in another paragraph in the Reception section.

2. The references have the dates. The ratings started up (reference dated April) then went down due to controversies and criticisms (references dated May, June). As viewers started realizing this drama is actually good, the praises started coming (references dated July, Aug). Finally, the performance of the drama, e.g. its success in Netflix and Studio Dragon's success also became known (references dated July, Aug). As you can see, there's a story.

3. So the big production budget was mentioned three times here, but the news report that effectively says that big production budget helped increase the revenue by 646% yoy, thus more than paid for itself, does not warrant a mention. See the bias?

Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracy

@Lizzydarcy2008: I said I would no longer discuss with you and will wait for the dispute resolution, but I have to clarify my point. I chose ‎Historical inaccuracy as the section header because Article #1 and Article #2 both refer to it as historical details. Please read WP:CSECTION. Instead or reverting, you could have chosen another name for the section. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: As I noted in my edit comment, this is a FANTASY drama. Renaming the section "Controversy" to "Historical Inaccuracy..." is incongruous and biased. It is unfair enough that detractors of this FANTASY drama kept nitpicking about its historical inaccuracy and now you're making Wikipedia a party to this injustice by actually naming a section after this charge. The historical inaccuracies are among the controversies lobbied at this drama. Keeping the section named "Controversy" makes it less biased, not to mention making it easy to refer to when other sections mention "controversies". Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: Per WP:CSECTION, how about "Symbols inaccuracy and broadcast warnings"? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: How about putting this under Reception? I have actually wondered why there is a different section for controversies. If the repetitive remarks about the ratings are removed and the first sentence is compressed into, "The series set a record for SBS highest Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings on its first week. However, controversies and criticisms negatively impacted the domestic TV ratings of subsequent episodes", we can put the controversies and criticisms after. Or we can put the controversies, criticisms and praises in sub-sections under Reception. We don't need to repeat the ratings here as readers can always refer to the Ratings section and see the lower numbers after the first week. Note that the Ratings section highlights the highest (blue) and lowest (red) numbers so there is really no need to repeat them in the Reception section. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: Please read wp:CSECTION. You are not supposed to make different sections for praise and criticism, only reception. Also, since the production error and warnings are long and their own individual topic, different from review praise and criticism, so they need their own section. How about "Symbols inaccuracy and broadcast warnings"? It is a good title and summaries the sub-section.

Edit: also as I said before, I’m not going to discuss the removal of text or ratings with you anymore until the dispute resolution volunteers step in because we talked about it already and you are adamant on removing it for biased reasons. I’m talking here about the sub-section title you reverted multiple times for no reason. Please, don’t bring up different issues. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: My understanding is that wp:CSECTION meant not to create purely negative sections; commingling negative and positive articles in one section is allowed. Whether you name Controversy to Symbols Inaccuracy or something else, it is still a negative section. I suggested putting controversies within Reception section where it will commingle with praises and just putting them into sub-sections. In any case, Symbols Inaccuracy is misleading since warships and temples can hardly be called symbols. Also, the term "inaccuracy" itself is misleading because this is a fantasy drama. The inaccuracy is one person's point of view and is nonsensical considering this is a fantasy, not a historical drama. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: “The inaccuracy is one person's point of view”, what does that mean? I can provide you 30+ articles talking about those controversy, it is not “one person's point of view”. Per wp:CSECTION, “Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled. Criticisms are specific appraisals or assessments, whereas controversies are protracted public disputes. Thus, sections such as "Criticisms and controversies" are generally inappropriate,” meaning they should be separate. Back to the sub-section title, you said, “These allegations of historical inaccuracies are already detailed in the section,” and admit it is labeled as historical inaccuracies, so why revert the title? The title should explain what is in the section and I see no reason for you to revert my change. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: wp:CSECTION said "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." This is what I meant with "commingle positive and negative aspects in one section". The sentence, "Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled." means what it says, Criticisms and Controversies are different. I said, "commingling negative and positive articles in one section is allowed." Notice the difference? Does it matter whether it was one person or several people who pointed out the inaccuracy? The point is that this is a fantasy drama, not a historical drama. You cannot lambast a fantasy drama for being inaccurate. It's bad enough that these inaccuracies are being described in the section. Highlighting them by including the term "Inaccuracy" in a section name is justifying them.

As I pointed out several times, this page cannot help taunting this drama. It was already unfairly lambasted for low ratings (caused by the Netflix effect and probably by the controversies about historical inaccuracies that undermined the production and made it fodder for criticism), its high production budget (other dramas with higher production budget don't have this information highlighted in their Wiki pages; this had even become irrelevant because the drama recouped the budget before it went on air and because the production company itself consider the drama a major factor in their record-breaking earnings) and historical inaccuracies (a FANTASY drama being expected to be accurate is preposterous). Throwing these stones at the drama is only done by ignorant and malicious parties, those who don't know the real story. We, at Wikipedia, should already know the real score, so we should not be party to the smear campaign by highlighting these stones in the page. Keep the ratings numbers in the Ratings section, the production budget in the Production section and at the right side of the page; the historical inaccuracies within the section, not highlighted in a section name. Why is this so hard to do? I am not saying we remove these already unfair and misunderstood negative aspects, I am just saying we should stop repeating and highlighting them. They are unfair and misunderstood even without repetition. Why is this so hard to understand?Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: I guess this is the end of the discussion. Guidelines are against you and you have no legitimate reply or reason for reverting my edits. Now you went back to wp:advocacy and started discussing something else. As I said, I’m not discussing that until dispute resolution volunteers step in. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: Are you not reading my replies? I just explained that you misunderstood wp:CSECTION. I said, "Negative and positive remarks may be commingled". The guidelines said the same thing. I think you got confused because I used the word "commingle" with "positive" and "negative", whereas wp:CSECTION used it for "criticisms" and "controversies. Re-read and understand what I said and wp:CSECTION. I discussed something else? I was explaining the context of my argument, why I am against highlighting "Inaccuracy" in the section name. The problem is that you have put on a detractor hat and would not listen to reason. You cannot see how negative this page is. You cannot even see that this is what wp:CSECTION is talking about. It says, "the word 'Criticism' should be avoided in section titles because it may convey a negative connotation to many readers." What do you think "Inaccuracy" conveys? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: what did I misunderstand? You are not making any sense. “best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section” is for the reception section. Also, even in the historical inaccuracy section, the production teams apology is the positive material. I really don’t understand what you are talking about. I suggest you re-read wp:CSECTION, especially this, “Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy. Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled. Criticisms are specific appraisals or assessments, whereas controversies are protracted public disputes. Thus, sections such as "Criticisms and controversies" are generally inappropriate.”

Also you know what I mean when I say don’t start discussing something else. Talk about rating, production budget, and the lead section are not relevant in this discussion, but you keep bring up other issues. Unless you properly only discuss the sub-section title using guidelines, I would not reply anymore as there is no point in wasting time repeating the same thing and resending wp:CSECTION which you refuse to follow. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: You're not seeing reason anymore. But let me try again. I mentioned commingling positive and negative topics when I suggested putting Controversy under Reception, probably subdividing Reception into the following sub-sections:

General:

"The series set a record for the highest Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings in SBS on its first week. However, competition with OTT services as well as controversies and criticisms negatively impacted the domestic TV ratings of subsequent episodes.

It maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks since its first airing. Global Hallyu Issue Magazine vol 37 of the Korean Foundation for International Culture Exchange (KOFICE) showed the series in 9th place in the World Ranking chart, the only Korean drama in the Top 10 list. The magazine also reported that the drama dominated traffic in the populous Southeast Asian region, placing 1st in Top 10 lists in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Singapore.

On Aug 2, International Business Times reported, "The K-Drama The King: Eternal Monarch starring Lee Min Ho and Kim Go Eun has reached another milestone. The drama is one of the most watched series among all the shows on Netflix. Here are the details of how much the K-drama was liked by the international audience. Currently, The King: Eternal Monarch occupies the first place among most watched Korean dramas on Netflix."

Hancinema announced, "In a report released on August 6th detailing Studio Dragon's financial performance over the second quarter, the drama production studio revealed a record-breaking 135 million dollars in total sales. This represented a 26% increase over the same time period the previous year... Three dramas in particular have driven much of this growth- 'Crash Landing on You', 'The King: Eternal Monarch', and 'It's Okay to Not Be Okay', all of which have been very successful internationally on Netflix. 'The King: Eternal Monarch' likely deserves most of the credit, as it is the only one of these dramas to have aired entirely during the second quarter."

Reviews:

(put praises and criticisms here)

Trivia:

(put controversies here)

Or we can put Reviews and Trivia in separate sections. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: Go read the other user reply to you here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User: Lizzydarcy2008 reported by User:CherryPie94 (Result: )

I will only reply to your last point, which is the only thing relevant to the discussion here. The controversies are not trivia. See trivia guidelines Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. It is misleading for us to change the sub-section title to trivia. Nothing is wrong with the use of “Historical inaccuracy and Broadcast warnings”, so I re-added it as the title. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: Are you even reading my notes? Do you honestly not see how preposterous "Historical Inaccuracy" is for a FANTASY drama? You are lessening Wikipedia's credibility not to mention making it a tool for a smear campaign. Are you being paid to do this? Also, "Inaccuracy" and "Warnings" have negative connotations, contrary to what wp:CSECTION recommends for section titles. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: As I said, I only read what is related to the current discussion and ignore the rest. Also, I find it funny that you keep talking about Wikipedia’s credibility while you are literally going against Wikipedia’s guidelines and using wp:advocacy. Anyways, in wp:CSECTION, the “positive and negative” you talk about are related to the reception/reviews, it is not talking about the controversy section. The last sentence in CSECTION is talking about the controversy section, plus this in the table, “For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources.” You still did not provide any guidelines supporting your view or even a valid point, even other people told you so in the edit warring report. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: You really are not reading my comments if you do not understand why I talked about Reception/Reviews in connection with Historical Inaccuracy. I had suggested putting Controversy under Reception. Re-read my comments against wp:CSECTION. I'll not waste my time repeating my points of view when you don't even read them. As the moderator of our dispute has pointed out, keep your arguments on the topic. Stop smearing me, insisting only fans would see how negative this page is. Open your eyes and compare this page with those of other dramas. Also read my response to the edit warring report. Is that another tactic of yours? Since your second sockpuppetry charge against me was again found to be baseless, now you're asking others to speak for you? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC on Second Paragraph of Lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Participants all agree that the question should not be Keep or Delete, instead it is a dispute on the version, which now has a new RFC. See RFC: Second Paragraph of Lede CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the second paragraph of the lede section be deleted?

Please !vote in the Survey section as Yes or Delete to delete, or No or Keep to keep. Do not reply to other statements in the Survey. Any replies can go in the Threaded Discussion. (This will make it easier for the closer to assess consensus.) The two editors who are having the dispute should make their statements in Statements by Proponents. Do not reply to those statements. You may reply to them in the Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Statements by Proponents

CherryPie94

Removing it is not a solution per WP:PRESERVE's "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary." However, the second paragraph is not even "poorly presented", it is neutral, verifiable, and shows both sides, it also summaries all sub-section in the series. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, there should be one or two paragraphs if the page is fewer than 15,000 characters, but the series page has 60,931 character, which is 15,719 characters with no space (18,719 with space) when counting only readers text, not counting the lead, section title, or wiki text (tables and templates), so should have two or three paragraphs.
I see no issue with including a second paragraph in the lead section, as this page has more text compared to other k-series pages. Also other K-series have second paragraphs too, see Big (TV series) and Guardian: The Lonely and Great God and The World of the Married. Wikipedia guidelines apply to all pages, K-series do not have their own guidelines, we should compare to good articles like Game of Thrones, not half-done K-series pages. However, replacing the second paragraph with only positive text and achievements like suggested by the other person in their sandbox is not neutral and seems like an advertisement. Adding only streaming achievement and deliberately removing mention of TV ratings is misleading as it make it seem like the series was only praised, while in reality lots of South Korean media wrote about its failure on TV (I could give you more than 30 articles). See Game of Thrones's lead, they both included mention of praise and criticism. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Since Lizzydarcy2008 was finally able to provide a source that says the low TV ratings can attributed to the rise of streaming platforms, so my suggestion is to keep the second paragraph and include that the views on streaming platforms were another reason for the low ratings. "On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to competition from streaming platforms and criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies." CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008

Please note, a vote of No or Keep means to keep the current paragraph as is. As I explain below, the current paragraph contains incorrect and sloppy statements that need to be replaced. A vote of Yes or Delete would allow the paragraph to be deleted and replaced with a more correct and less sloppy text.

The second paragraph should highlight the most important aspects of the article in addition to those already mentioned in the first paragraph. They should be verified true and not based on speculations. The current second paragraph cites reasons for the low ratings based on speculations. Attributing the low ratings only to criticisms and controversies is erroneous and had been soundly disproved by even members of the media previously critical of the series. There is another possible reason for the low ratings - because the series recouped its production budget even before it aired, SBS found no incentive to promote it to raise its ratings. It turned out, the series was successful in the streaming market in South Korea. It went to the top of the charts in both Netflix South Korea and Wavve. Its success in Wavve is even included in the second paragraph itself. Korea Times reported, the low ratings "can largely be attributed to the rise of streaming platforms. Thus, increased competition from Netflix also contributed to the low SBS ratings. As we can see, there are other possible causes for the low ratings. Citing only criticisms and controversies is incorrect.

The drama was even more successful in the international market. Because of its success, the drama was singled out as deserving credit for the record-breaking second-quarter earnings of its production company. Just let that sink in. This drama achieved success its detractors try to undermine under the bog of such pettiness like production budget that these detractors keep forgetting had already been recouped even before the show aired. The drama went to the top of Top 10 lists in several countries. This drama broke the glass ceiling for kdramas in several countries! Why are these notable achievements not highlighted in the second paragraph? The only mention of it in the paragraph is with this sloppy sentence, "with GMA News Online terming it a 'hit Netflix drama' due to its popularity overseas". Saying it was a "hit" violates the following rule for what to put in the lede section per MOS:INTRO, The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using subjective "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning" or "hit"). There are much better-sourced proofs about the drama's international success available. Why are we putting a lame testament to its success based on a web site calling it a "hit" show, with no statistics to prove it? For all we know, their basis might be the unreliable and inaccurate Flixpatrol yearly ranking. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Keep. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep. User:Revolutionery (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Keep or Delete

Lizzydarcy2008 claims that "reasons for the lower ratings based on speculations" and that "Attributing the lower ratings only to criticisms and controversies is erroneous and had been soundly disproved by even members of the media who had previously criticized the series." So here I am providing you sources to show that it is not just speculations as Korean media did extensively write about it, and those news papers did say the controversies were one of the reason's the series had low ratings, so here they are: Article #1 that was written after the series end, Article #2, Article #3 that was written after the series end, Article #4 that was written after the series end, Article #5 (in English), Article #6 (in English) (I can get more). Instead of using weasel words such as "disproved by even members of the media", why not provide sources that clearly says "The King: Eternal Monarch received lower viewership ratings in Korea because of Netflix?" I can assure you, that is not the case as Crash Landing on You also aired on Netflix but it got really good TV ratings even though it also aired on cable TV which has smaller audience compared to SBS, a free TV channel.
This statement "The drama was so successful, it was singled out as deserving credit for the record-breaking second-quarter earnings of the production company" is not a fact, it is an opinion by one of the news websites. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, "Avoid stating opinions as facts." You should provide the facts and let them speak for themselves, but what you are doing is combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. No one said it was not popular overseas, but is your only proof that it was popular overseas has to rely on flixpetrol data and removing mention of low TV ratings? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: Please try to understand my comments before replying so we don't keep going back and forth. Had you read my proposed texts for the second paragraph and Reception sections, you would notice I mentioned other factors for the decrease in domestic ratings. In the Reception section, I specifically pointed out controversies and criticisms as other reasons. The current second paragraph attributed the ratings ONLY to criticisms and controversies. This is erroneous. It does not even mention the most important reason - the Netflix effect.

Korea Times reported, the low ratings "can largely be attributed to the rise of streaming platforms. 'Thanks to Netflix and other services, I can choose to watch TV shows of assorted genres made in the U.S, Europe or many other countries at any time I want to,' a Korean woman in her 20s told The Korea Times. 'I don't watch Korean TV series frequently because of their cookie-cutter stories and excessive product placement'. A rise in the number of people sharing comparable perspectives with her has triggered a fall in the ratings." (added 8/28/2020)

You should know by now your attempts at smearing me would not work. "Weasel words"? If you read the Wiki page of this drama more closely, you would notice two references to Hancinema, one critical and another actually saying the drama deserves most of the credit for the success of its production company. Several other publications like Soompi attacked the drama so much there is currently a petition demanding Soompi apologize to the drama (https://twitter.com/sam_sam_017/status/1298175463718674436/photo/1). Yet Soompi declared the drama ended on solid ratings. Pinkvilla used to be critical of the drama but posted an article about how the drama beat Crash Landing On You as most watched kdrama on Netflix in 2020 so far (https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/hollywood/king-eternal-monarch-beats-crash-landing-you-become-most-watched-k-drama-netflix-2020-yet-554101). There are more examples on the web.

You should follow your own advice and let facts speak for themselves. The main reason for this loooong debate is that you insist on repeating information already mentioned in other sections, rewording and rephrasing the same information over and over. The ratings are already mentioned in the Ratings section. Let those rating numbers speak for themselves instead of ramming the ratings down readers' throats, going as far as repeating the rating numbers in the Reception section. The production costs are already discussed in the Production section and in the right side of the page, yet you insist on mentioning it once more in the second paragraph. Please re-read our past discussions for the reasons these don't merit any more mention in the second paragraph.

For the nth time, you can easily see I did not reference Flixpatrol on the page itself. I don't intend removing mention of ratings; I am just removing repetitious mention of them. The problem is you ignore everything that does not support your prejudices. Thus, we keep going around in circles. Don't you have other things to do than obsess over smearing this drama? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I never removed your text that is reliably sourced such as "No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks", what was removed is the statements that are combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, texted backed by unreliable sources (flixpetrol data), and opinions stated as facts. If you can provide sources that clearly says "The King: Eternal Monarch received lower viewership ratings in Korea because of Netflix”, then it will be included in the article. All what you wrote in your reply is original research. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: In the same vein, show me a well-sourced document saying the low domestic ratings were caused ONLY by criticisms and controversies. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I already did above in my first comment on the Threaded Discussion. I provided multiple articles and could give you more. "The burden of proof is on the claimant", you want to claim that the ratings are low because of Netflix, then you need to provide sources and I will gladly include it in the article. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

There you go again, reading only what supports your prejudices. I said give me articles that say ONLY criticisms and controversies caused the low ratings. Nothing else. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: Rather than this back and forth, do you have a source that does state the ratings are low because of Netflix? Of the five sources in your suggested reception section in your sandbox, none of them state this, and you have yet to give your statements on that section, so I have been waiting to see if such a source exists before I vote. But, this deflection from providing a source seems to imply that you don't have such a source. If that is untrue, please provide it. Nangears (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: You are the one causing this back and forth, as you are the one making disruptive changes and blaming others for undoing your disruptive changes. You even made changes while there was a dispute resolution discussion going on. What is it you cannot understand from my statement above? I already pointed out two other possible causes for the low ratings - (1) because the production budget was recouped before the series went on air, SBS had no incentive to promote it further, leading to lower ratings after the first week (2) the heightened competition from Netflix that experienced record-high subscriptions in April. For the nth time, prove that the low ratings were caused ONLY by criticisms and controversies as your second paragraph alleges. Otherwise, your second paragraph contains an incorrect statement and should be deleted and replaced with a more correct one. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: I am not the user who you have been having this dispute with, you should check signatures before replying. Yes, you have pointed out POSSIBLE causes, but not ones backed by reliable sources, which is what I asked for, to help me in determining my response in the survery in this RfC. You have given your speculation, and the statements you have given fall under opinion and original research, as you are drawing conclusions from sources when they are not stated. I was asking for even one reliable, secondary source, that points to the low ratings being caused by Netflix. Also, in general, you should know that generally you should not edit the comments you have already made once people have responded to them, so in the future you should avoid editing your statement above, or if you must, use strikethrough or something like that, because otherwise, when you remove or reword content, later comments will seem to be responding to content that is no longer there. Nangears (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nangears: My apologies for not checking your signature. I updated my statement to make it clearer as it seemed like it was not being understood. But I know exactly what it feels like responding to something that has changed. I felt the same way when massive changes were made on the article in the middle of a dispute resolution discussion. Some of my arguments became senseless. I will refrain from editing answered comments in the future.

Regarding the sentence alleging that controversies and criticisms caused the low ratings, the references in the current second paragraph also did not specifically say they did. The first reference (http://sports.hankooki.com/lpage/entv/202005/sp20200510074229136670.htm) just noted that "The slump of'The King-Eternal Lord' continues", but did not specifically state that criticisms and controversies caused the low ratings. The second reference (https://sports.chosun.com/news/ntype.htm?id=202005230100194960013818&servicedate=20200522) said, "Kim Eun-suk is all blame for the poor performance of'The King'? Lack of detail → directing also played a part". The article was asking a question and it went on to analyze the writer's previous works and dynamics with the director but did not specifically state these are all causes of the low ratings. The third reference (http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200518000644) said, "Star screenwriter struggling with lower-than-expected popularity of 'The King'" then went on to enumerate controversies and criticisms but did not specifically state they caused the low ratings. They were all speculations. In the same way, I doubt I would be able to find an article specifically stating Netflix caused the low ratings or that the fact that the production costs were recouped before the show aired removed the incentive to promote the drama leading to lower ratings. I think the only way the cause of low ratings may be stated with confidence is if a survey were done in South Korea asking responders the reason for not watching the show on SBS. This, of course, just proves that the statement in the second paragraph attributing the low ratings only to criticisms and controversies is unfounded. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: But the articles do directly state controversies and criticisms of the show as reasons for low ratings. The second reference does point out how the low ratings are unexpected after the director's earlier success, and then directly points to directing and the show's composition overall not explaining complex things well to the audience as reasons for the show to have found less success when compared to these earlier works. The third reference, after mentioning the success of the director's earlier work like the second source, says that, "In "The King," however, such characteristics have failed to impress audiences. Rather, controversies over its historic scenes have undermined the reputation of the drama", and enumerates several other things the audience has pointed to as criticism of the show, those being that "the series fails to fully explain the parallel universe", and distracting product placement, and then controversy over "Japan-like styles" in some scenes. These are all mentioned in explanation of the shows low ratings, again, in comparison to the director's earlier work. There are multiple explanations given, by reliable secondary sources, and these are mentioned in the lead and explained more fully in the article body, as is appropriate on Wikipedia. The lead, as it is, does not point to one and only one thing as the reason, it points to several critcisms, all that are sourced and has been connected by secondary sources to low ratings. Since you have continously deflected from providing a source, this leads me to think that you do not have a similar source, that points to Netflix's popularity as a reason for low ratings. Therefore, interpreting sources that mention a rise in Netflix's popularity as a reason for the show to have had less traditional viewship, is just that, an interpretation, which is not appropriate on Wikipedia. You may personally hold the opinion that this was a contributing factor to the show's lower ratings, but if you do not have a reliable secondary source to back up that opinion, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Nangears (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nangears: Korea Times reported, the low ratings "can largely be attributed to the rise of streaming platforms. 'Thanks to Netflix and other services, I can choose to watch TV shows of assorted genres made in the U.S, Europe or many other countries at any time I want to,' a Korean woman in her 20s told The Korea Times. 'I don't watch Korean TV series frequently because of their cookie-cutter stories and excessive product placement'. A rise in the number of people sharing comparable perspectives with her has triggered a fall in the ratings." (https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2020/07/688_293337.html) Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: Thank you for supplying a source! It's unfortunate you didn't have this source earlier, as now the options for the RfC are between keep and delete, and I think the best option would be to add the rise in streaming platforms to the list of reasons for lower domestic TV-viewership, as, based on that source, streaming services seem to be a contributing factor as well as the criticism around the historical fantasy elements and other such controversies. Nangears (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nangears: This is why my suggestion is to delete the second paragraph and replace it with a more correct and less sloppy one. Keep means to keep it as is. Delete would allow it to be replaced. Please note I made some changes to my statement just now to clarify that Keep means to keep the second paragraph as is. As I mentioned in my statement, there are many more issues about the current second paragraph - it does not include more important aspects of the drama. The Netflix success of the drama is lamely mentioned in a pathetic sentence that references a news site merely because it called the drama a hit. It will be noted that Wikipedia itself advises against the use of "peacock terms" like "hit" in the lede section per MOS:INTRO. There are better-sourced references that may be used instead. That is, that whole sentence needs to go in addition to the incorrect sentence that attributed the low ratings only to criticisms and controversies. The reason the options for this RFC became keep and delete was because the dispute resolution discussion abruptly terminated when the other party made massive changes to the article and my suggestion for a new text for the second paragraph somehow got shelved. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: I see your suggested second paragraph on your sandbox, but to me that deletes too much of the relevant information on the several causes for low ratings (which even the article you just linked me to points to more than one cause, not just streaming services), so I think that does the page a disservice as well. I would keep the current paragraph mostly as it is, as it summarizes well the relevant page info for the average reader (such as why it was so highly anticipated), but then just add to the final sentence a mention of the rise in popularity of streaming platforms as one of the causes of its lower ratings. Nangears (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nangears: You won't believe how hard it is to update anything in this article. Every change I do is reverted. So I doubt I will be able to make any corrections to this paragraph after it is officially accepted to be kept as is. The paragraph as it stands now emphasizes the negative aspects of the drama that are highlighted in other sections already. Are the expectations more important than a drama being singled out as deserving credit for the record-breaking quarter earnings of its production company? That lame mention of the drama being a "hit Netflix drama" is just pathetic compared to much better testaments of this drama's success. I will add criticisms and controversies to the factors that affected the low ratings in my suggested text.Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: Unfortunately, I think this is a place we will have to disagree on, as to me, the majority of the second paragraph is positive anticipation and reception for the show, with only around a fourth of it mentioning negative reception about the show, which seems to be a fair way to handle the complicated reception the show had. But, adding the mentions of the several factors that led to lower ratings to your paragraph, I think would make it more balanced overall, and make for a better suggested change. Nangears (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nangears: I updated my proposed text to add controversies and criticisms. To explain why I said this is negative, compare this to those of other Korean dramas, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_Landing_on_You and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heirs. Most Korean dramas don't have a second paragraph. Those that do, mention their most notable achievements. If they don't, please check the View History. They had probably been recently updated to invalidate my observation.Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: I see how you might see that it seems overly negative, when comparing it to some other Korean dramas, but I think you have to consider both of these cases more carefully, considering the lead in the context of the article and in the wider context of Wikipedia and its guidelines. So, in the case of The Heirs, the page itself has minimal discussion of the reception of the drama, outside of just a basic table of ratings and awards. It makes sense that the lead therefore does not go into further detail about it, as that is not part of the content of the page. But, the page needs improvement overall (it is currently rated as a start class article on its talk page), rather than being an example to follow. In the case of Crash Landing on You, I would say that the article overall is fairly good, but the lead should be improved, as it doesn't even allude to the in-depth discussion the article has on the reception the show had, particularly its portrayal of North Korea. In general, when considering how to write a good article (which should always be the goal on WP), it's better to compare it to a good article in the category, not just any article in the same category (if you can't find one for Korean dramas specifically, go to TV shows more broadly, and then only in cases where TV shows broadly cannot provide a guide to a specific question, turn to a lower quality article that matches more specifically what you are trying to decide to include or how to format). But, more specifically to those comparisons, how often was criticism a major factor discussed in secondary sources about either The Heirs or Crash Landing on You? I'm not saying either were totally free from criticism, but the low ratings of The King: Eternal Monarch seem widely discussed in many sources on the show, so it seems like it is a more notable aspect of the show than in either of those cases. Nangears (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nangears: The Heirs was shown in 2013 before I got into Korean dramas so I am not familiar with its reception back then. But it seems to be not as well respected as writer Kim Eun-sook's other works, even less respected than The King Eternal Monarch. Crash Landing On You seems to be generally well-liked, though not free from controversies and criticisms. But it was definitely not as badly lambasted as The King Eternal Monarch. The attacks on The King Eternal Monarch were senseless. It was lambasted because a temple that was on TV for less than a minute (blink and you miss it), looked more Japanese than Korean. It was also attacked for other artifacts, e.g. the imperial seal and crown, looking more Japanese than Korean and the Japanese warships looking Korean. The majority of viewers did not even notice them and did not care when they found out. This was a fantasy drama after all. But it hit a sensitive nerve among the local audience - their patriotism. These controversies kept getting published even after the production team apologized. The bad press undermined the production and made the drama fodder for criticisms. The detractors of the drama made a big deal of its low ratings and relished calling it a flop. While the show was airing, people thought the low ratings were caused by the criticisms and controversies. It was only after other highly anticipated dramas suffered the same fate of lower ratings did the TV industry realize what really happened - the sharp rise of streaming services was the major culprit. There was also talk of sabotage against the drama, that is why when I saw how negative its Wikipedia page was compared to other kdramas, alarm bells rang off. I have been trying to make sure Wikipedia is not made a party to a smear campaign. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: I can see that you have good intentions with editing the page, but also you can only include on WP what is said in reliable, secondary sources, which is why I insisted on a source that made the Netflix and rating connection. Per WP:RGW, you cannot put forward what you think is the truth, you have to present, in a neutral way, what secondary sources say. And even if you think it has been unfairly lambasted or even sabotaged, if there is not sources to back that up, you cannot include that or remove the information that you personally think is unfair. Yes, some sources point to Netflix as a reason for low ratings, but even those sources acknowldege the controversy around the show as part of its low domestic ratings. The low ratings in connection to controversy seem to be something the show continues to be associated with, even following its conclusion. For example, here is an article on another show that got caught in controversy and its viewership has suffered for it, and the comparison the article makes is to The King, pointing to the several controversies around it and how, while it was a highly anticipated drama, it fared worse than expected because of the controversies surrounding it. [1] To exclude the information on controversy would be to inject your own opinion into the page on what is and isn't the truth of how the show was received. As editors, we can only determine that based on what secondary sources say. So, while I appreciate that you want to make sure the show is treated fairly, you cannot do so in a way that dismisses reliable, secondary sources, without very good backing by other reliable, secondary sources. I have yet to see anything that says the controversies did not affect the show's ratings, which is why I suggested a combination of the factors be presented, as that seems to be a better representation of what secondary sources are saying. Nangears (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nangears: The text I am suggesting for the second paragraph mentions the streaming services, controversies and criticisms as some of the factors for the low ratings (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lizzydarcy2008/sandbox#Second_Paragraph). The controversies are also discussed in more detail in my suggested text for the Reception section under the Cultural Disputes sub-section (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lizzydarcy2008/sandbox#Reception) Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: Yeah, I see the updates you have made to your second paragraph, my response was more directed at your most recent response to me, about why you were worried about the inclusion of the controversies on the page. My point was simply that even if you feel that secondary sources have treated the show unfairly, that isn't the role of editors to correct. If there aren't reliable secondary sources that directly challenge the view of those initial reliable secondary sources (and even the source that you added doesn't challenge it, it just adds other aspects to it), then those initial, even if negative, sources are what should be included in the page, including in the lead per MOS:LEAD. If there were reliable sources showing how the show's reception has been misrepresented or how it was intentional sabotage, then that would be different. But, as the sources show now, I think that, and it seems you agree, that controversies and criticisms should be included in the article and lead, as well as streaming services causing lower domestic ratings. To be honest, in this first discussion (of the two RfC's), it seems the discussion has mostly reached a compromise, as both you and the other user have both agreed in changing your lead's in a way that concedes the other's point, and now it is mostly an argument over wording choices, rather than content dispute. I do not know if you see it similarly, but that is what it seems like. Nangears (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nangears and Lizzydarcy2008, if you think we really reached a compromise, we can ask User:Robert McClenon to change the question from Keep or Delete the second paragraph, to vote for version A or B of the second paragraph. There is only 1 vote and can easily ping the editor and ask him about his opinion again. Also, thanks Nangears for mediating as this at least got us moving in the right direction. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nangears: My concern about the inclusion of controversies and criticisms was because they did not tell the whole story about the ratings. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nangears and CherryPie94, I agree to making the choice be between different versions of the paragraph. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: I didn't mean to become a mediator in the discussion, I just hoped that as a neutral person in regards to your earlier disputes and as someone who can read the sources, I would vote in which way I felt would improve the article best. But, I'm glad it has helped move the discussion forward. @Lizzydarcy2008: That makes sense, and I see why you were concerned about it.

I will wait to see what User:Robert McClenon has to say about the discussion and the changes to the RfC before I vote. Nangears (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Since Lizzydarcy2008 was finally able to provide a source that says the low TV ratings can attributed to the rise of streaming platforms, my new suggestion is to keep the second paragraph and include that the views on streaming platforms were another reason for the low ratings. "On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to competition from streaming platforms and criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies." I amended my Statements by Proponents to say this. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

To the voters of this survey, please be aware of the choices: Yes to Delete the second paragraph Or No to Keep the second paragraph AS IS. Since the second paragraph has an obviously incorrect statement, as well as other reasons mentioned in my statement above, it should be deleted so it may be replaced with correct and less sloppy text. My suggested text is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lizzydarcy2008/sandbox#Second_Paragraph. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: You yourself insisted during our dispute resolution discussion that the second paragraph should be kept AS IS and now you're updating it? Such disruptive behavior is making me dizzy. Isn't it enough that your massive edits to the article in the middle of the dispute resolution discussion caused that discussion to be aborted? Since you admitted to a mistake in the second paragraph making it unfit to be kept AS IS, then it seems you just threw in the towel. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: the question here says “Should the second paragraph of the lede section be deleted?” It doesn’t say keep AS IS. Previously, I did say keep it as is in the dispute resolution because you refuse to give sources, but now that you have, we can go and edit it once the RFC is over and the choice in keep. The RFC doesn’t cause a permanent ban on editing, it means the second paragraph can’t be deleted/re-added (depends on the results) in the future, but it can still be edited if it was kept. Once this finishes, we can add your source and say streaming platforms also contributed, "On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to competition from streaming platforms and criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies." Do you still have an issue, if so please state it? I believe Nangears explained much better than I would have by saying, “To exclude the information on controversy would be to inject your own opinion into the page on what is and isn't the truth of how the show was received.”

Also, this major change you refer to was adding Viewership table which is provided by Nielsen. As far as I know, you did not have an issue with the viewership section and it also has nothing to do with this discussion here. If you believe there is a problem with the data, you can bring up the issue in the other RFC, not here. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: before you violated the rule about not editing the article while dispute was in progress (the second time), the reason the choice was between keeping the second paragraph AS IS and deleting it was because it was negative, incorrect and sloppy. I did submit a suggested text for the second paragraph but the dispute was aborted because of your violation and my suggested text was somehow ignored. There was no talk about absence of some source as you are alleging. I had other issues with the second paragraph, not just the controversies and criticisms sentence. Please see my statement.

Both DRN Rule A and DRN Rule B have this rule: "Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress" that you violated twice. My arguments refer to the Ratings section that you renamed "Viewership", so now anybody reading my discussions about the Ratings section would wonder what I am talking about. Just because I didn't comment on your illegal edit about viewership doesn't mean I accept it. I haven't commented on it due to two reasons (1) I don't dare edit it because the dispute is still ongoing (2) the first time you violated the rule against editing the article, when you renamed Controversy section to Historical Inaccuracy while the dispute was in progress and I reverted your violation, you raised a sock-puppet investigation and an edit-war complaint against me. Such harassment, disregard for rules and injustice are too much aggravation that I'm trying to handle with tolerance for now. I'll deal with Viewership later. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: I did apologize for that as I somehow missed reading the rules. Nevertheless, this is not related here. Don't keep bringing up previous issues, talk about the current discussion, not something that passed. I really don't understand why you are angry. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: You have reverted almost every edit I made, reported me twice as a sockpuppet, dragged me into a dispute resolution discussion that you violated the rules of by making massive edits to the article while the dispute was going on, and when I reverted one of your violations you had the gall to raise an edit-war complaint against me, and you're wondering why I'm not pleased with these proceedings, yet you forbid me to mention your actions that explain why. You're not making any sense. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Different versions

Since Lizzydarcy2008 agreed that the discussion should not be about whether to keep or delete the second paragraph, instead it should be about choosing which version, let us discuss here. If you still want to discuss keep or delete do it above. @Robert McClenon: Can you also add the question of choosing which version to the RFC, when you do, I will ping Michaelelijahtanuwijaya. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008's version: The series set a record for the highest Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings on SBS in 2020, though several factors including the rise of streaming services in South Korea as well as controversies and criticisms affected the domestic TV ratings in later weeks. The series made the Top 10 list of most watched TV shows on Netflix in several countries, ranking #1 in some of them. Vol 37 of Global Hallyu Issue Magazine reported it ranked 9th in the World Ranking list of most watched TV shows, the only Korean Drama in the Top 10 list. It maintained the #1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks. Due to its success, it was singled out as deserving credit for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of Studio Dragon, its production company."

CherryPie94's version: Hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, screenwriter, extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget, the series set a record for SBS’s highest 2020 Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings following the release of the first episode and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks, with GMA News Online terming it a "hit Netflix drama" due to its popularity overseas. On the other hand, it received lower-than-expected domestic TV viewership ratings due to competition from streaming platforms and criticism of its screenplay, directing, editing and various controversies.

References

Discuss below this line (no need to add a new header):

My issue with Lizzydarcy2008's version:
1. Data in the Global Hallyu Issue Magazine all come from flixpetrol, which was deemed unreliable. I know that the data is from flixpetrol as it was reported to be #9 there and nowhere else, plus for some reason, Korean media keep labeling it as Netflix's charts when they are citing flixpetrol. I assume they think it is really an official Netflix chart. Anyway, if Netflix did indeed release their data, you would be able to find it, but it is nowhere as they usually release it at the end of the year, see last years, it was reported on January 2020 not mid year. At the end of the year, if it really made the list, I would personally add it. Also none of Netflix original series on Wikipedia use the netflix daily trending list as an achievement. The King is no longer the #1 k-series of 2020 on Netflix or #9 worldwide per flixpetrol, the source is outdated a reflects The King trending as #9 for a few days. But for now what I'm saying is that such changing charts/lists are not added to Wikipedia as they are insignificant and changes daily. If you want, I could ask in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and see if data from Netflix daily top 10 chart can be used or not. If they say we can add it, I have no issue in adding it, but for now they are deemed unreliable by even other editors who were removing it even before I ever edited on this page.
Also, I'm not sure if the same standards are applied to TV series charts, but in Wikipedia:Record charts, "Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used", meaning you can't add Amazon, Spotify, and iTunes charts. Netflix charts would fall under that too. I will be asking about this, but I'm not sure if Wikipedia:Help desk is the correct place. I asked and here is the link Wikipedia:Help_desk#Netflix_charts.
2. The statement about it being "singled out as deserving credit" is an opinion, not confirmed by the production company. Hancinema said "likely deserves most of the credit", they confirmed nothing and are stating their opinion. Business Korea said that the raise in sale was because of "the growing popularity of K-dramas, particularly The King: Eternal Monarch," here they are talking about growing popularity, they did not single out the series for "the record-breaking second quarter earnings" from my understand. I might be wrong so let us see what others think.
I feel like the flow is not that great and each sentence seems disconnected, as if you are bringing multiple statements and just randomly throwing them into a paragraph. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Responses to CherryPie94's comments (please see my issues with CherryPie94's version below, after this sub-section):
1. Can you show me the chart from Flixpatrol that is exactly like the one in Global Hallyu Issue magazine? In fact, the magazine contains information not in Flixpatrol, e.g. the magazine mentioned the drama being in the top in the Dominican Republic. This information is not in Flixpatrol which is missing a lot of data. Look at the charts in the magazine. I don't see those rankings in Flixpatrol. And just because Netflix does not release the results to the public does not mean they did not release them to their investors and partners. Global Hallyu Issue magazine might even have a different source of information from Netflix. The fact is that the charts are in the magazine. This magazine is not some tabloid or fan magazine. It is from the Korean Foundation for International Culture Exchange (KOFICE). Regarding the significance of a kdrama being in the top 10 list of most watched Netflix TV shows worldwide, how many times has this happened before? This does not happen everyday, if ever. This is probably the first time and you don't think this is significant? Your negative bias is so obvious. Note that merely "trending" is much much different from being in the top 10 list. And again, Flixpatrol is the source that is deemed unreliable. And for the nth time, it is common knowledge that rankings change. That is why when you talk of ranking, you have to mention the time period as I did when I mentioned Vol 37 of the Global Hallyu magazine that was released in July. The drama is not anymore #9 but in July 2020, it was.

How about the claim of your reference, GMA News Online that the drama was a "hit Netflix drama"? There are no numbers or charts to prove this; just the term "hit". Where did they base this claim on? For all we know, they probably were the ones who used Flixpatrol.

Regarding the music charts, it makes sense that "charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used". Music is played on different platforms - Amazon, Spotify, and iTunes charts. Publishing only one chart excludes a lot of information. In the case of Netflix, it was the only platform used to market The King Eternal Monarch internationally. So, the drama's performance on Netflix would be the only way to measure its global success.

2. I did not specify that it was the production company that singled the drama out. But the fact remains; it was singled out as deserving of credit as noted in https://www.hancinema.net/hancinema-s-news-studio-dragon-posts-best-ever-second-quarter-earnings-off-of-strong-drama-performances-143958.html and http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=50192. In fact, Hancinema said, "It likely deserves MOST of the credit", but I did not go that far, just the fact that it was singled out. Per Business Korea's article, "Programming revenue reached a record; non-captive revenue skyrocketed 646% YoY... Drama sales climbed 9.3% YoY... amid the growing popularity of K-dramas, particularly The King: Eternal Monarch." To para-phrase, "the growing popularity of kdramas, particularly The King: Eternal Monarch" contributed to Studio Dragon's record earnings in the second quarter. Being so singled out is a notable achievement that does not happen to every kdrama, thus deserves to be highlighted in the lead section.

3. The flow of my second paragraph is clean and concise, as follows:
- Domestic performance - it started with high ratings but several factors affected its ratings in later weeks
- International performance - Netflix and Wavve
- Additional testament to its noteworthiness - credited for production company's success (how many dramas have gotten such credit?) Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: The Dominican Republic is on flixpetrol. See the screenshot here: https://cdnweb01.wikitree.co.kr/webdata/editor/202006/02/img_20200602144811_40989d3a.webp and https://flixpatrol.com/top10/netflix/dominican-republic CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: This page says the drama was in #8 in the Dominican Republic. There is no record of it being in #1, as Global Hallyu Issue Magazine vol.37 reported. Page 62 of the pdf in http://m.kofice.or.kr/b20_industry/b20_industry_01_view.asp?seq=1113&page=1 says, "It is ranked at the top in the Dominican Republic." Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: I gave you the screen shots because you said there is no data for Dominican Republic on flixpetrol, which is false. The highest it got in #5 in in the Dominican Republic. Also, please don't use Korean sources if you can't read them and have to resort to google translate. The sentence says, "홍콩, 말레이시아, 필리핀, 싱가포르, 대만, 태국, 나이지리아 등에서 1위를 유지하고 있고 일본, 인도, 칠레, 볼리비아, 도미니카공화국 등에서 상위권에 랭크 중이다," which translates to "It maintained first place in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Nigeria, and ranked high (not #1) in Japan, India, Chile, Bolivia and the Dominican Republic." CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: Again you misunderstood what I said. I did not say there is no data about Dominican Republic in Fixpatrol; what I said was there is no data of the drama being #1 in Flixpatrol. If Google translate is indeed inaccurate and the sentence about Dominican Republic in Global Hallyu magazine means high, not top, it still does not prove that Global Hallyu used Flixpatrol as its source. Truth does not change. It means Flixpatrol and Global Hallyu Issue magazine are consistent with the truth. How about the other charts in Global Hallyu magazine? I am not seeing them in Flixpatrol. And this still does not answer the other question; where did your source GMA News Online get its claim about the drama being "hit Netflix drama"? Why are you not interested in where GMA News Online got that information from, but nitpicking on where Global Hallyu Issue magazine got its information from? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: Netflix never reported that the series was #9 anywhere and doesn't even have a "World Ranking" on their website, the only place that did is flixpetrol. Netflix only release their numbers at the end of the year. I assume Global Hallyu magazine took the data from June 9 or 10 as the series match: https://flixpatrol.com/top10/streaming/world/2020-06-10 However, you have to know that as flixpetrol add previous data from missing countries recently such as the middle east and caused a shift in old data. They also added IMDB and twitter ranked which even more shifted old data. Unfortunately, web archive was not used to capture data daily, so I will email both Netflix and Global Hallyu and ask where they got the info, hopefully they can reply and I will share their answer with you. Also, I know it was popular on Netflix, I don't deny it, but you should not use flixpetrol data to show that, that is all I'm asking. See Crash Landing on You#Commercial Performance, they mentioned it being a good series on Netflix without having to resort to flixpetrol, you should do this instead of relying on flixpetrol data. GMA News Online stated an opinion without mentioning flixpetrol and might have based it on online popularity not necessary number of views on flixpetrol. Anyways, I asked here and here, and was told Netflix chart should not be used. Let's not discuss this anymore and wait for votes. People would not bother read all this before voting anyways as they have done on the other RFC. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: Do you even read and try to understand what I write? I have been saying all along that Global Hallyu did NOT say they got their information from Flixpatrol and I had been trying to prove that they did NOT get their information from Flixpatrol but now you're telling me not to get information from Flixpatrol? The term "World Ranking" is in the Global Hallyu Issue magazine, not in Flixpatrol or Netflix. Voters who care about the right thing to do, and not just vote based on their biases, should care about what we write here. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: I told you I emailed Global Hallyu yesterday and they replied saying, "The data you asked are from FlixPatrol." Here is a screenshot: https://i.ibb.co/PjdZWyt/Capture10.png CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: I had also emailed them and awaiting their reply. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Issues with CherryPie94's version:
1. Contrary to her claims, [[User:CherryPie94| is NOT making the article neutral. She has, in fact, been emphasizing the negative aspects of the drama and downplaying, if not removing, the positive ones. The lead section is supposed to establish or introduce a topic's noteworthiness per MOS:INTRO. One of the most noteworthy aspects about this drama is its success in Netflix. Yet, the only place it is mentioned in CherryPie94's version is in this lame phrase "with GMA News Online terming it a 'hit Netflix drama'" at the end of a very long sentence. For one, using the term "hit" violates MOS:INTRO that states, "... not by using subjective 'peacock terms' such as 'acclaimed' or 'award-winning' or 'hit'". In addition, the reference does not have any supporting material explaining why it called the drama a hit. For all we know, GMA News Online might have based its conclusion on Flixpatrol. It will be noted that the reference I used, the Global Hallyu Issue magazine includes charts and other details not found in Flixpatrol proving it did not use Flixpatrol data. This noteworthy achievement is also given a proper place in my version - its own sentence, not just an afterthought in a super-long sentence.
2. What CherryPie94 emphasized was that the drama was highly-anticipated. Is being highly anticipated more noteworthy than dominating Netflix charts or being singled out as deserving of credit for the production company's stunning quarter earnings? A lot of dramas are highly anticipated, e.g. It's Okay To Not Be Okay and Backstreet Rookie, being also comeback vehicles for other popular Korean actors, yet such information is not in these dramas' Wikipedia pages. It will be noted that the reasons cited for why the drama was highly anticipated does not include one that is often cited by newspapers - that it is the comeback drama of its lead star (please see https://www.newsbreak.com/news/1541129619969/lee-min-hos-comeback-the-king-eternal-monarch-to-arrive-on-netflix-trailer-promises-intriguing-romance). Thus, this sentence is incorrect. Also, specifying the budget amount violates another guideline in MOS:INTRO that says, "editors should avoid... overly specific descriptions". It will be noted that the amount is already mentioned in two other sections in the page. In any case, since there are more noteworthy aspects of the drama that deserve to be in the second paragraph, this information belongs in the Reception section.
3. The first sentence is too long and sloppy. I'm getting virtually out-of-breath reading it. And please spare the readers the "hailing" and "terming".
4. The second sentence indicates there are only three reasons for the lower-than-expected ratings. This is not correct. Another reason for the lower ratings is because the drama recouped its budget before it aired, relieving pressure on the viewership rating in Korea (please see http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=293689). A fifth reason, sabotage, is also still under speculation. It will be noted that my version says, "... several factors including the rise of streaming services...affected domestic TV ratings..." Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: 1. The lead summarize and doesn't introduced new facts not written about in the body. Information about the series achievements on Netflix are not in the article, so they can't just randomly show up on the lead. The "Hit" is a quote it doesn't qualify as peacock terms from my understand, if I'm wrong I don't mind it being removed. 2. It does say "ensemble cast" and this is a minor thing that can be added if you want. 3. Not a valid reason on Wikipedia. 4. "reducing the incentive to raise its ratings" is not in the article and is your opinion. 5. Sabotage has nothing to do here, if news papers report we add the info and do not inject out opinion here. A quote from User:BEANS X2 to you, "If WP:Reliable Sources are generally more negative about this particular TV series, then there's nothing Wikipedia can do about it." And I suggest you re-read Nangears replies such as "My point was simply that even if you feel that secondary sources have treated the show unfairly, that isn't the role of editors to correct." CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94:

1. The series' achievement on Netflix should be in the article. It is its most notable achievement. It used to be in the article until you deleted it. It is in my version of the Reception section. Come to think of it, the second paragraph currently has a note about "hit Netfix drama" but since you deleted all mention of the success of this drama on Netflix in the Reception section, there is now a phrase that randomly shows up in the lead. So you just contradicted yourself. Talking of that "hit Netflix drama" phrase, MOS:INTRO considers the word "hit" a peacock term. That GMA News Online called the drama a "hit" is the only reason it is in the second paragraph. A lame, pathetic reference, in keeping with your strategy of downplaying the positive aspects of the drama, just a trailing phrase in a super-long sentence, thus probably would not register in the minds of readers virtually out-of-breath reading such a lengthy text.

2. Saying "ensemble cast" or "cast including Lee Min Ho" is much, much different from saying "This is Lee Min No's comeback drama"

3. It should be every writer's goal to make every sentence he writes as easy to read as possible

4. Please re-read the reference

5. Whether there was sabotage or not, the point here is that there are other possible reasons for the low ratings than just those three you mentioned. #4 is already another one. My sentence is more comprehensive since it mentioned "other factors including...". I suggest you re-read my reply to Nangears. The problem is that this article is emphasizing the negative and downplaying the positive. My version of the second paragraph presents the most noteworthy aspects of this drama as what MOS:INTRO suggests should be in the lead section.

Regarding what User:BEANS X2 said, this is why we have this massive wall of text, you never listen to what I say and I am sick of repeating myself. Here is an excerpt of my response to User:BEANS X2, "This page is currently negative because we are repeating negative points about the drama. I am not suggesting we remove the negative points. I am suggesting we avoid repeating them. In some cases, we are mentioning them three times. I have been removing the repetitions. The duplicate remarks I am removing are already covered in their respective sections..." Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Former Moderator's Comments

I thank User:Nangears for asking me for my opinion, which is only my opinion, and I thank User:Nangears for trying to provide a neutral perspective. I had difficulty in moderating the discussion for various reasons, including that it appears that we have two editors who do not like each other and that we have two editors, User:CherryPie94 and User:Lizzydarcy2008, who are verbose. As a result, there are now walls of text that may make the two editors feel better, but do not clarify the issues. It is still difficult for me to follow what the issues are because the statements are so lengthy, but I am trying to understand what the issues are, and to ignore the statements in support of positions.

I failed the moderation because one of the editors was continuing to edit the article, and was saying that she didn't know that she wasn't supposed to do that, because she hadn't read the rules because I didn't wave them in her face, and that her edits were innocent anyway. The other editor then began complaining at length on my talk page and elsewhere about how unfair Wikipedia is. I am really very tired of both editors, but will try to help, because we want the best possible article for the readers. The editors should know that the next stop is WP:ANI, which might end up with the survivors editing the article.

I do not plan at this time to express an opinion on content. If the issue about the second paragraph of the lede is now about two versions rather than Keep or Delete, we can ignore the old RFC and let it run out, and start a new RFC. Is that what is wanted? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The RFC cannot be edited? Maybe we can have the editors vote Keep or Delete, and if Keep, choose the version. So far, there is only 1 vote here and we can ping the voter and ask him to choose a version. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:CherryPie94 - It is physically possible to edit the RFC. It is a genuinely terrible idea to try to edit the RFC after there have been responses. How will the closer interpret !votes that were entered before it was changed? Think about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User: Robert McClenon, then we can either wait for it to end or end it citing reason 1 or 2 per wp:RFCEND. Lizzydarcy2008 thought you were suggesting we keep it AS Is (not edit on it ever again) or delete it so another version is added by her. Both Lizzydarcy2008, Nangears, and I now agree that this is not the correct question as all participants and proponents want to keep it, but the dispute is on the version. Is it possible to end it and start another one? If not, then we can wait. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:CherryPie94 - Okay. I will pull the RFC tag at some point in the next 24 hours. It is the RFC that we had originally said we wanted. Where are the two proposed versions of the wording for the second lede paragraph? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User: Robert McClenon, Thanks and sorry for any past mistakes. They are listed just under Different versions. I also added it to my sandbox, so you can refer to the sandbox if it makes it easier. User:CherryPie94/sandbox#Second lead paragraph (different RFC) and User:Lizzydarcy2008/sandbox#Second Paragraph. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, are the voters supposed to read our statements before voting? One of the editors voted before I even got to write my statement. Also, how would other editors know about this survey? Are we supposed to ping editors? Another thing, the changes User:CherryPie94 made while the dispute was going on were not innocent. In fact, when I reverted one of her changes (rename Controversy to Historical Accuracy), she dragged me into a sock-puppet investigation and an edit-war complaint and this section title has been added to the list of things we've been arguing about. Also, it's not that I don't like her but I don't like what she has been doing to this page under the guise of "making it neutral". She has been emphasizing the negative aspects of the drama and downplaying, if not removing, the positive ones. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User: Robert McClenon; After going through the entire discussion one thing which was evident is that, there is a debate between the proponents CherryPie94 and Lizzydarcy2008 on the fact that The King: Eternal Monarch is a successful drama or not. Facts/opinionated facts and changes proposed by Lizzydarcy2008 mostly seems to be flattery and pleasant to read, on the other side, facts/opinionated facts proposed by CherryPie94 seems to be quite exaggerated on both positive and negative aspects of drama's reception making it to seem neutral. One topic which was touched many times was the popularity of this drama outside South Korea. I myself a regular Kdrama watcher can say that: Yes, The King: Eternal Monarch was a popular drama overseas but others kdramas like Crash Landing on You and It's Okay to Not Be Okay were more popular overseas. Even considering it to be a important reason for its less viewership rating on TV is absurd. It can be said that drama was popular overseas and can be considered as a part of its success but regarding it as strong point/stand for lower viewership is not quite believable. Even the source added to make this fact acceptable is a topic of debate should not be added in neutral articles of Wikipedia. Dramas like Itaewon Class and Crash Landing on You also aired on online streaming sites like TVing and Netflix simultaneously with TV but still recorded strong ratings throughout their run. Even if you disregard my opinion on the fact of viewership the facts stated are true. As a conclusion, if I have to choose between the two proposed changes I will go with proponent CherryPie94. But the sentences are quite exaggerated and I will suggest them to be made simpler. Revolutionery (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Revolutionery: I never said it was not successful overseas, I just stated the fact that it got low domestic TV ratings (with source of course) and that is were the dispute started with me, though there was already edit wars on the page with other editors even before I started editing. My request is for the other user is instead of using flixpetrol or data from flixpetrol, we should try to show that it was popular overseas by other means (example: positive reviews, sale of brands advertised on the series achievements). Look at Crash Landing on You, the page did not even have to resort to using flixpetrol data to show that it was successful. Of course, when Netflix release their end of year data, we can add it to the page including mention of any end of year Korean awards. If you can provide any suggestions, I might edit my proposed second paragraph. Thanks for taking the time and reading everything and sorry that it was long. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Revolutionery: MOS:INTRO states that the lead section should establish or at least introduce the topic's noteworthiness. The most noteworthy aspect about the drama is its international success, yet CherryPie94's version mentions it being a "hit Netflix drama" as an afterthought in a long sentence that emphasizes the high anticipation, in keeping with her strategy to downplay the positive aspects of this drama and emphasize the negatives. Which is more noteworthy, the high anticipation or the international success? Due to its success, the drama was singled out as deserving of credit for the quarter earnings of its production company. In fact, the source noted, it "likely deserves MOST of the credit" but I did not go that far. Is this not noteworthy? Why is this not mentioned? Facts are not flattery. In fact, I did not use peacock terms MOS:INTRO advises against like "hit" as used in CherryPie94's version. The reason why overseas popularity is not pointed out in the Wiki pages of Crash Landing On You and It's Okay To Not Be Okay is because the lede sections of those dramas do not say anything about the low domestic ratings and high production budget, stones thrown by detractors at The King Eternal Monarch whenever they taunt it as a flop. Those who noted the negativity of the Wiki page of this drama have been trying to neutralize the negative lean. Regarding why the domestic ratings of Crash Landing On You and Itaewon Class were not affected by Netflix numbers as much as The King Eternal Monarch, Korea Herald reported that Netflix achieved "record-high subscriptions in South Korea in April" (http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200526000284) presumably due to the pandemic. It will be noted that Crash Landing On You and Itaewon Class had finished airing by April while The King Eternal Monarch had just started. Also, both Crash Landing On You and Itaewon Class were released by cable. How much more likely would existing cable subscribers switch to Netflix than domestic network TV viewers? Unless there is a survey to find this out, we cannot know for sure. But the fall in domestic TV ratings has been "largely attributed to the rise of streaming platforms". (https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2020/07/688_293337.html) Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: Well I don't have much time to write long essays to counter you. Well there are some things I would really like you to know.

1) You wrote: Regarding why the domestic ratings of Crash Landing On You and Itaewon Class were not affected by Netflix numbers as much as The King Eternal Monarch, Korea Herald reported that Netflix achieved "record-high subscriptions in South Korea in April."

So you mean to say that only the ratings of The King: Eternal Monarch was affected by streaming sites. Don't you think this will be applicable to all the dramas which released after April 2020 which also aired on streaming sites. The thing which is applicable to all the drama why has to be mentioned particularly in one drama's wikipedia page? It should be added on this particular page: Korean Drama.

2) You wrote: Also, both Crash Landing On You and Itaewon Class were released by cable. How much more likely would existing cable subscribers switch to Netflix than domestic network TV viewers? Unless there is a survey to find this out, we cannot know for sure. But the fall in domestic TV ratings has been "largely attributed to the rise of streaming platforms".

I will also like to ask how many people will likely switch to Netflix than free domestic network TV? As you said, we can't say anything until there is a survey. So isn't to early to say. I will once again repeat that your sources talk about fall in ratings not particularly for a specific drama but for all Kdramas so that should be added on a page which cater for all the Kdramas instead of adding on the page for a particular drama.

And regarding my view on Cherrypie94's proposed edits, I already conveyed her that it is exaggerated. I will suggest both of you that instead of fighting, work together. Afterall wikipedia is a community. Isn't?Revolutionery (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Revolutionery: My apologies if my comments are lengthy. I'm just trying to make sure to get my message across clearly as it seems it is not getting understood.

(1) The King Eternal Monarch was not the only kdrama that was affected by the surge in popularity of Netflix in Korea in April. But it was the first highly-anticipated kdrama. It therefore bore the brunt of mostly negative speculations about why its ratings were lower than expected since the only official numbers available were the Nielsen ratings as Netflix has not released official numbers. It was only when Backstreet Rookie and It's Okay To Not Be Okay suffered the same fate of lower-than-expected ratings was the cause of the problem realized. I agree, this warrants mention in Korean Drama page as well.

(2) Yes, this topic should also be discussed in Korean Drama page. It is briefly mentioned in The King Eternal Monarch page to explain the lower-than-expected ratings. I shortened its discussion in the Reception section.

User:CherryPie94, in the spirit of community suggested by User:Revolutionery, what do you think of this:

"One of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its cast, screenwriter, publicity and production budget, the series set a record for the highest SBS Friday-Saturday drama premiere ratings in 2020. However, competition from streaming platforms as well as controversies and criticisms affected its domestic TV ratings in later episodes. Nevertheless, it was the most watched TV show on Netflix in several countries worldwide and maintained the No.1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart throughout its airing for eight consecutive weeks. Its success was one of the factors credited for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of Studio Dragon, its production company." Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008, please read MOS:UNFORTUNATELY. Also, I would prefer for people to vote instead of having to continuously repeat the same point about the use of flixpetrol data/Netflix charts. The votes would be the only way to reach a conclusion. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: Is the MOS:UNFORTUNATELY for the use of "surmise"? It is in the Reception section. This is why I have not continued the discussion of the RFC on the Reception section yet to avoid this kind of confusion.

Regarding Netflix, your version of the second paragraph also has reference to it. If you noticed, the suggestion above is a combination of your and my suggestions with exaggerations muted. It also removed violations against MOS:INTRO rules such as overly specific descriptions, e.g. $ amount, and peacock terms like "hit". The survey is a mockery since one editor voted even before I wrote my statement. How can voters vote fairly if they have not read the arguments? Editors who do not want to read the arguments should not vote. In the first place, I agreed to changing the "Keep As Is or Delete" survey to "Version A or B" one due to the confusion about the "Keep As Is or Delete" survey because you wanted to make changes to the kept version. This after causing the dispute to fail by making massive changes to the article before the terms of the RFCs were agreed on. So I agreed to change the choices for this RFC but did not reckon on the partiality of the voters. Also, I just noticed that editors of this page who had tried to lessen the negativity of this page had been blocked. So the voting population itself is skewed. Now I don't wonder why you've wrongfully accused me of sock-puppetry and edit-war after I tried to revert changes that you made while the dispute was going on. I do wonder why editors who update articles during disputes causing such disputes to fail are not subjected to the same disciplinary action. But, focusing on the task at hand, User:Revolutionery suggested we work together and that is what I'm trying to do. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzydarcy2008: I’m not talking about surmise, I sent you the specific section so read what I sent you. Also, I would no longer reply as I have already talking about the word “Hit” with you before in a different reply, go read my response there. The other 26 blocked users were sock puppets, which is against Wikipedia’s guidelines and that is why they were blocked. Until Robert McClenon starts a new RFC with the correct question, I will not discuss this anymore and waste time. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.