Talk:Finger pinching conspiracy theory

RfC: Pertinence of the references in the background section

The article's background section has references that mention South Korea's gender equality issues. Is their coverage pertinent or substantial enough to be included here? 00:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This RfC concerns the current first paragraph of the background section. The two references following the sentence The country's gender pay gap was described to be the widest among OECD economies are the focus of this RfC.

• The Little Symbol Triggering Men in South Korea's Gender War - The New York Times
• 'I got death threats when men thought I put feminist gesture in video game' - BBC

A question was raised by one user who states their coverage is either not pertinent to the topic of the article or cited in the wrong section. This RfC seeks to address how these references should be present, and whether they should be removed from here. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The references relating this topic to gender inequality were mostly made of NYT guest opinion articles, which has had multiple factors discrediting it, even other than the misinformation from the source they provided. The first and the biggest factor would be the fact that the article is a Guest article. Guest essays in the New York Times (and similar major publications) can be written by a wide range of individuals, not limited to professional journalists. Not only that, NYT editorial staff does screen guest essays, but: They are not subject to the same editorial process as reported journalism. The opinions expressed are the author’s own, not NYT's. There are written on Op-ed Wikipedia article, as well as other sources. Guest essays aren’t vetted the same way as staff-written or editorial board pieces. Per WP:RSOPINION, even reliable newspapers require caution when the content is opinion.

Also, as this is an opinion, this should not be in the background section, where facts are supposed to be placed.

Not only that, the author of these articles uses biased languages such as stating that "A woman was murdered or targeted for murder, on average, every 1.4 days or less.". I feel that the sentence makes it sound disproportionately scary, and could spread possible misinformation that Korea has high homicide rate, when the reality is different. These opinion articles should be taken very carefully. Someone123454321 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

These were already mentioned somewhere else, but it's worth repeating: the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia's inclusion doesn't look for "facts", but the source's reliability. The author of the NYT articles is a former AFP journalist and published author of related topic, which gives her reliability. The point about "biased languages" is a moot argument, either. Being biased doens't necessarily mean it's unreliable per WP:PARTISAN.

Here are the articles that can flesh out the background section:

• BBC - 'I got death threats when men thought I put feminist gesture in video game' - This one was already noted. This report covers a lot of background, from gender discrimination (South Korea has the largest gender pay gap in the OECD, a group of the world's rich countries.) to women rights activism (During this time, women took to the streets in protest at sexual violence and the widespread use of hidden cameras that secretly film women using toilets and changing rooms - around 5,000 to 6,000 cases are reported annually. to Pangyo workers interview.
• Segye Ilbo report - This article by Segye Ilbo journalist Jeong Jihye discusses potential factors for the conspiracy theory's emergence, such as incel phenomenon, son preference, and toxic masculinity.
• SCMP - How South Korean YouTube star Jaejae pricked the fragile male ego - This also mentions the wage gap in the OECD statistics, World Econimic Forum's report (The World Economic Forum’s 2021 Global Gender Gap Report ranks South Korea as 102nd in gender parity. Among the variables it uses are economic opportunities, education, health and political leadership.) and other background information for South Korean antifeminism.
• The Korea Herald - After being called feminists, these women faced online harassment - Lots of gender-related statistics. "Between 2016 and 2020, more than 80,000 cases of dating violence were reported to police, of which 227 were murder, according to police data. The figure saw a steady rise from 9,364 in 2016 to 18,945 in 2020."
• Korea's two-finger salute: What is the 'crab hand' and why is it so controversial? - This article by Yoon So-yeon goes in details about gender conflicts near the end. Korea has gone through some of the most radical changes in its modern history, especially regarding politics and social norms. While women fight to minimize the wage gap and divide household labor hours within the household, men argue that military duties should also be divided with women amid the shrinking younger population.

I think these are enough to fill things in. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

About the homicide ratio itself, South Korea is some of the lowest in the world, as I have mentioned several times, and I don't think you added in any additional sources about it either, so I think we should probably remove that. About the son preference, that was about at least 20 years ago, to be exact, until 2003. In recent years, South Koreans tends to prefer daughters. I don't think that the male preference is worth the mention here. In fact, The Economist even mentioned Korea as one of the examples of countries with natural male to female child ratio. (sources:https://www.munhwa.com/article/11511178, https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/06/05/the-stunning-decline-of-the-preference-for-having-boys, https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/06/05/more-and-more-parents-around-the-world-prefer-girls-to-boys)

Also, " "Between 2016 and 2020, more than 80,000 cases of dating violence were reported to police, of which 227 were murder, according to police data. The figure saw a steady rise from 9,364 in 2016 to 18,945 in 2020." should probably just have mentioned the murder rates and dating violence rates, because this just makes it seem scarier when South Korea has some of the lowest crime ratio for these statistics too. The word "dating violence" covers a wide area, but a recent report said that the ratio of dating violence from a partner is 54.5% for men and 55.4% for women, which is almost the same. (https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/421/0004898402?sid=102) Also, I don't think that article was related to this topic either.

Now, I understand the frustration of women in the society where they may be treated unfairly, and although there is not a clear connection between the title and the gender discrimination, since so many sources mentioned it, I think it is worth mentioning in the article too. But in the same way, there are multiple sources mentioning the frustration of men too, and referring this as gender conflicts. I feel some of the sentences should be softened a little. Someone123454321 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who said the sources must be pertinent to the conspiracy theory? None of your articles bring up antifeminist movements in South Korea, let alone the conspiracy theory. These don't supplement the Wikipedia articles; they supplement your own argument. Original research doesn't belong here.

this just makes it seem scarier Why do we have to care about making South Korea look scarier? This is not a tourist guide. Wikipedia doesn't have to build good publicity for someone else. Just stick to the sources. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Emiya Mulzomdao I got convinced that it may be worth mentioning here, although some of the sentences may be needed to be softened. Also, Wikipedia needs to be unbiased as possible and deliver information in a way that will not cause misunderstandings. For example, the pay gap is real, and we just need to bring the statistics. There are no arguments about that. However, homicide rates, along with some other stuff, didn't do that and instead made a possible room for a misunderstanding that Korea has a high homicide ratio, which, if compared with other developed nations, can be proven false. Someone123454321 (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, these types of datas biased wordings were what made me feel that the gender inequality in Korea was irrelevant to this topic in the first place. We need to make it so that there are less misinformation or misunderstandings as possible and only put what can be statistically relatable in objective point of view. Someone123454321 (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what NPOV means in Wikipedia. Wikipedia can document all kinds of biased points of view. What NPOV wants is neutral editing. We shouldn't arbitrarily leave some things out simply because you don't agree about someone's statistics. There's an essay called Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Then this should have been stated that the author of the NYT guest essay has expressed that claim instead of just putting it up there. We can also add some statistics according to it. Someone123454321 (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense to move the attribution to Hawon Jung. The statistics about the OECD wage gap can now be covered by several articles, so I think the paragraph should mention that one first. I can rewrite the paragraph accordingly. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Emiya Mulzomdao I think the first paragraph and second paragraph of the Background tab should be merged, since those two are related and putting the first paragraph above second paragraph seems like it is giving it more attention. Someone123454321 (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be best to put it after the second sentence before mentioning the growing antifeminism in Korea since the late 2010s. Someone123454321 (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with that. The order of paragraph has little to do with what's being given attention. Besides, one information is always bound to come after another. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Emiya Mulzomdao But if the order of the paragraph has a little to do with what's given attention, it shouldn't matter even if we add the two paragraphs together, no? I'm just saying this cause I the two paragraphs are related under the first line of the second paragraph. Someone123454321 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Why should the paragraphs be merged? They're sound as is. I don't understand why you want to do this.

I see you're attempting a rewrite on the article, but given this discussion the whole thing needs to be redone. I suggest the following:

South Korea in the 2020s has been described as having gender inequality in a number of aspects. Multiple authors noted the country has one of the widest gender pay gap among the OECD; Hawon Jung, a former AFP journalist and author of Flowers of Fire, also noted more than 65 percent of public companies on the Korea Exchange had no female executives. In a 2021 report, World Economic Forum ranked South Korea as 102nd in gender parity, based on the variables like economic opportunities, education, health and political leadership. The Korea Herald's Yim Hyun-su reported that women in South Korea feel less safe than men; according to a 2021 report from the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, only 21.6 percent of women in the country responded that they felt safe from crime, as opposed to 32.1 percent of men.

This looks like a right way to do it. I cited the statistics only from the 2020s to fit the first sentence. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I suggested merging the paragraphs, since the first two paragraphs of the background tab seems to be related, and the first sentences of the second paragraph kind of mentions the things that the first paragraph said. Merging them, or changing their placements would make a better point for the second paragraph, where it is describing the country's gender conflict, as it would add the women's frustrations to add onto the point.

I suggest the following:

Younger generations of South Korea has been experiencing gender conflicts in the recent years, with 78.9 percent of people in their 20s describing the conflict as severe. In the 2022 presidential election, 36 percent of young men voted for PPP and only 14 percent for DPK, while 39 percent of young women voted for DPK and only 14 percent for PPP. (https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25320255, https://www.chosun.com/national/national_general/2022/05/06/7GH3AXAYIJHQVK6EDV4CX75PUA/)

South Korea in the 2020s has been described as having gender inequality in a number of aspects. Multiple authors noted the country has one of the widest gender pay gap among the OECD; Hawon Jung, a former AFP journalist and author of Flowers of Fire, also noted more than 65 percent of public companies on the Korea Exchange had no female executives. In a 2021 report, World Economic Forum ranked South Korea as 102nd in gender parity, based on the variables like economic opportunities, education, health and political leadership. The Korea Herald's Yim Hyun-su reported that women in South Korea feel less safe than men; according to a 2021 report from the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, only 21.6 percent of women in the country responded that they felt safe from crime, as opposed to 32.1 percent of men.(Adding your suggestion). There have been organized social movements by women, referred to by The New York Times as "Asia's most successful MeToo movement".

Men have also shown their frustrations, which includes that women are not subjected to compulsory military service, intense job competition, the lack of political representation, refusal to take responsibility for the toxic masculinity of older generations, and being unfairly stereotyped as potential criminals. A 2021 survey claimed that 79% of South Korean men in their 20s believe they are victims of reverse discrimination. Antifeminists reportedly adopted terms like "femi" or "man haters" to discredit feminists. Since the late-2010s, there has reportedly been an increase in the number of antifeminist young men who view feminism as a supremacy movement that oppresses men. Feminism in Korea, especially Radical feminism has had a notable transphobic and homophobic (against male homosexuals) presence, with internal dispute about the acceptability of such beliefs.(https://h21.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society/52652.html, https://www.womennews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=196504, https://www.chosun.com/JCYFC7YA7NDMRJSWTOXZJAGFXU/, https://www.pressian.com/pages/articles/278679, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/12259276.2024.2379053) Antifeminists reportedly adopted terms like "femi" or "man haters" to discredit feminists.

The parts that I didn't add in the citations are already cited in the article. Someone123454321 (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I've also looked into the Gender inequality in South Korea, and found that "Due to the various methods of calculating and measuring gender inequality, South Korea's gender inequality rankings vary across different reports." I think that part is worth mentioning. We could also bring in examples such as Korea 1ranking 2th out of 172 countries on Gender Inequality Index(GII), making the country the 2nd least gender unequal state in Asia in 2025. (https://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Society/view?articleId=271110#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20Development%20Programme%20(UNDP)%20has%20ranked%20Korea%2012th,up%20from%200.062%20last%20year.) I could give much other examples that rate South Korea high on the gender inequality if needed such as Women, peace and security index, but I feel that laying out too many examples will make it too focused. Someone123454321 (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

That's just way too long and confusing. You've haphazardly put together two paragraphs that covered two related but distinct topics (gender-related statistics and gender conflicts) on top of going into too much details. That's not great at all.

Didn't you also say earlier we should only have sources pertinent to the conspiracy theory? Almost all of these new ones don't have anything to do with it directly. And what is all this stuff about TERF? Let's not go off-topic and turn this page into a WP:CHIMERA. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

If that's the case, your last reference isn't directly related to this topic either. The article already mentions the stance of both sides, and when we are going to say that 79% of men believe that they are victims of gender discrimination, I believe it is worth mentioning the gender divide in the country. We should also give how feminism is viewed in Korea when we are going to say that since the late-2010s, there has reportedly been an increase in the number of antifeminist young men who view feminism as a supremacy movement that oppresses men. We could also bring in polls about how people view feminism in Korea when we are going to say that there were an increase in number of feminists. For example, feminism was perceived negatively by 67.2∼73.4% of general crowd in their 20s~50s according to a survey conducted by Munhwa Ilbo. Someone123454321 (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The reason why I the resources should make connections to the topic instead of just putting it up there was because there were statistics such as homicide rates mentioned in a biased way. Adding related statistics to the already existing sources and claims in the article to help with understanding and context should be okay. Someone123454321 (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't get why you're still making claims like "your last reference isn't directly related to this topic either" given that it's one of the first things mentioned in the article. Let me point it out from source -

The accusations began after she used a pinching hand sign that some claimed to be misandrist. They say that the hand gesture, thought up by radical feminists, is used to mock the size of male genitalia. Last year, many South Korean companies were forced to apologize after some took issue with the hand sign found in advertising materials.

You already argued we should stick to the sources related to the conspiracy theory, then you should be consistent about your point. The sources you brought up do not mention the conspiracy theory, and all these things about TERF do not belong here. My point about WP:CHIMERA still stands. If you want to add something about TERF, you should add that to something like Gender-critical feminism, not here.

And would you please stop restoring your edit while the discussion is still going on. You're disrupting the process by overloading works. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I added the references because they are related statistics to the already existing claims in the article right now. Also, the references didn't say TERF, they just said feminists or radical feminists. If you don't think that the reference I'm making is related to this topic, than the second paragraph should be deleted altogether, since some of the existing sources doesn't seem to be related to this article. Adding statistics or surveys related to the existing claim in the article should be fine, and related, but if you think those already existing claims are unrelated to this topic, then we can delete them. Someone123454321 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I added the references because they are related statistics to the already existing claims in the article right now. Also, the references didn't say TERF, they just said feminists or radical feminists. If you don't think that the reference I'm making is related to this topic, than the second paragraph should be deleted altogether Someone123454321 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh wait why is there two different replies? Sorry about that. Anyways, "Since the late-2010s, there has reportedly been an increase in the number of antifeminist young men who view feminism as a supremacy movement that oppresses men. Reasons given for this belief include that women are not subjected to compulsory military service, intense job competition, the lack of political representation, refusal to take responsibility for the toxic masculinity of older generations, and being unfairly stereotyped as potential criminals. A 2021 survey claimed that 79% of South Korean men in their 20s believe they are victims of reverse discrimination. Antifeminists reportedly adopted terms like "femi" or "man haters" to discredit feminists." part of the article mostly does not have a reference that is related to this title in general. However, based on these, I believe the statistics and explanation I provided does add up some context. If we think that this is unrelated, then we can delete it. Someone123454321 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/12259276.2024.2379053

Well, this is the journal you mentioned here, and I'm pretty certain this has a "TERF" in the title.

Do you think the second paragraph also should have references related to the conpiracy theory? Is this what you mean? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

But all of the other articles didn't. For example, the 뷔페미니즘 mentioned by 조선일보 is one of the major images of feminism in Korea.

While I do think that the contents in the second paragraph are quite related to the topic, since most of the references don't seem to be so, I think it is eligible for deleting. Your call. However, if it stays, then I think the some of the sources I provided should stay too. Someone123454321 (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Alright then. For the second paragraph, we'll also use the references related to the conspiracy theory, per your idea. I'll look for the sources for those. While at it, how about replacing the current first paragraph with this for now? This one now uses the references pertinent to the topic. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I don't think we need every single source to be related to the topic, as long as the source is related to the other provided source that had relation to the topic or deemed to be related. It's just that when so many of those parts are coming from an article that is unrelated to this topic, it could be challenged to a removal. We can add the paragraph you mentioned in the meantime, and I can also add some related statistics to it too. Someone123454321 (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I also dealt with attributions that mentioned NYT since it's been established they should be credited to Hawon Jung. I'm looking up the articles that associate this topic with gender conflicts. So far this piece from The Joong-ang and CNN's 2021 article look suitable, but it's gonna take some time to gather materials. A few days, maybe more. I'll report back when I think it's enough. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Random break

I've collected sources that mention this topic, closely or otherwise.

• The JoongAng - A detailed report from JoongAng whose coverage overlaps with the current background section, including a list of reasons why Korean men feel discriminated.
• The New York Times - This one is markedly written by The Times lead reporter Choe Sang-hun. Mentions antifeminist movements, including this topic. He talks about the "gender wars" affecting the presidential race among other things.
• Kyunghyang Shinmun - Covers the topic in regard to the politics' reaction to gender conflicts.
• CNN - A report with significant coverage of gender issues, GS25 finger controversies, and then some.
• News1 - This coverage is relatively short, but it is written by the news agency employee and has a quote from sociology professor.

The mention about the increase in antifeminist movements can be covered by The JoongAng article. Others will need some more work. --Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Emiya Mulzomdao Nice job. I can make a paragraph with it if you want. You could do it yourself if you want to too. Someone123454321 (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The country is also known for severe gender conflicts. A 2021 survey by Ministry of Gender Equality and Family found that among the age range of 19 to 34 years, 74.6% of women and 51.7% of men both felt discriminated in South Korean societies. Since the 2020s, antifeminist sentiment had become prevalent among young Korean men, arguing they were victims of reverse discrimination. Reasons given for this belief include that women are not subjected to compulsory military service, dwindling job opportunities, refusal to take responsibility for the toxic masculinity of older generations, and the assumption that they are falling behind their female peers. This phenomenon reportedly led to the backlash against feminism, such as street rallies organized by men's-rights group New Men's Solidarity. In addition, the gender war attracted interest from politics, with numerous politicians and parties making attempts at representing these antifeminist men.

This is the new one I've written up for now. All of these sources focus on the antifeminist movements, so they ended up becoming the main subject in this version. I tried not adding too much details, since they show up in other parts of this Wikipedia, like in "Discourse" section. This paragraph is meant for background info only. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, seems fair enough. I think that references such as 2018 Hyewha Station Protest, the biggest feminist movement in the history of South Korea that remained highly controversial, and the rising tide of anti-feminism led by Megalia, the argued symbol of the finger pinching theory can also be added here. I can give the sources that connect these cases into the anti feminism trend in Korea accordingly. I think we could also add the statistics for support of feminism in Korea too. Someone123454321 (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll go through the sources to see if I can add something about women's rights movements in this country, but either way, it's important these info all must be covered by reliable, reputable sources that discuss this article's topic. It's why we're doing this rewrite to begin with. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

"Since the 2020s, antifeminist sentiment had become prevalent among young Korean men, arguing they were victims of reverse discrimination. Reasons given for this belief include that women are not subjected to compulsory military service, dwindling job opportunities, refusal to take responsibility for the toxic masculinity of older generations, and the assumption that they are falling behind their female peers." I have found additional sources to add on or support these sentences. https://www.khan.co.kr/article/201807211311001?utm(페미니스트는 왜 혐오의 대상이 됐나/Why Feminists Became Objects of Hate). https://www.munhwa.com/article/11268098(survey conveyed by Munhwa Ilbo about reception of feminism in general crowd in Korea) Someone123454321 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

These offer insight for the gender war, but they don't seem to discuss the incidents concerning finger pinching gestures. We've made a point earlier that the sources must be closely related to the finger controversies. These look usable for other gender-related articles, but not applicable here. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Emiya Mulzomdao I think I made the point earlier that if there is already a provided source that is directly related to this topic, giving statistics or sources that are closely related about it to support it should be fine. But we can discuss about it. Someone123454321 (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd prefer if we stick to the related sources only, given that it's why this rewrite started. These articles about the gender ministry, womad, etc. are not discussed in depth in other sources here. This is slightly off-topic, but I also consider Munhwa Ilbo mostly unreliable due to their constant violation of journalism ethics. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright then. We can just add the paragraph you gave. But I think it is necessary to link falling behind their female peers to military conscription. I was hoping we could add "with the growing political gap between the two genders" in the last sentence instead of " with numerous politicians and parties making attempts at representing these antifeminist men." because I feel that it highlights the gender war in Korea more. I could give out other polls from more reliable sources too. Someone123454321 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I think making these changes would ultimately need another source, so I'll go through the news articles to see if a sentence or two could be added about women's right movement, to round out the gender war segment. Give me a few days or so. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58082355 - I've checked this one again, and it covers both women's right movement and the finger incidents. With this, I can add a sentence.

Around 2020, South Korea saw a rise in feminist campaigns by women, including MeToo movement, the abolition of abortion law, and the claim to short haircuts.

This can balance out the paragraph since now that it'll cover both feminist and antifeminist movements, while confining all sources to be about the fingers. What do you think about this? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright. And I think that we should add " The government has also rolled out programs in recent years to bring more women into the workforce. Proponents of those programs have said they’re necessary for closing gender gaps, but some men have worried they give women an unfair advantage." in the sentence after falling behind their female peers to give more perspective, and this is a direct quotation from the source. Since the article also says "Another compounding factor: Unlike women, men in South Korea have to complete up to 21 months of military service before they’re 28 years old — a sore point for some men who feel unfairly burdened.", I think it is safe to add due to the military conscription part after falling behind their female peers too. Someone123454321 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.economist.com/asia/2021/06/17/young-men-in-south-korea-feel-victimised-by-feminism We can also add that men are wanting compensation for their sacrifice in the military, and that people who rally against what they call radical feminism in Korea has claimed that "It’s not about anti-feminism, it’s about fair competition." Someone123454321 (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/02/business/south-korea-business-gender-war-intl-hnk-dst/index.html I mean this source that you gave, by the way. Someone123454321 (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The governmen programs look like it should be written in the paragraph before. The bit about the military service is already noted, so I can attach The Economist article to that part. I've rewritten the first two paragraphs to reflect these.

Extended content

South Korea in the 2020s has been described as having gender inequality in a number of aspects. Multiple authors noted the country has one of the widest gender pay gap among the OECD. In a 2021 report, World Economic Forum ranked South Korea as 102nd in gender parity. To curve this trend, the Korean government rolled out programs to bring more women into the workforce.

The country is also known for severe gender conflicts. A 2021 survey by Ministry of Gender Equality and Family found that among the age range of 19 to 34 years, 74.6% of women and 51.7% of men both felt discriminated in South Korean societies. Around 2020, South Korea saw a rise in feminist campaigns by women, including MeToo movement, the abolition of abortion law, and the claim to short haircuts. Since the 2020s, there has also been an increase in Korean men who argue they are victims of reverse discrimination. Reasons given for this belief include: the compulsory military service exclusive to men; dwindling job opportunities; refusal to take responsibility for the toxic masculinity of older generations; and the assumption that they are falling behind their female peers. This phenomenon reportedly led to street rallies organized by antifeminist movement groups, such as men's-rights group New Men's Solidarity. One rally participant argued "[this movement is] about fair competition." In addition, the gender war sparked interest from politics, with numerous politicians making attempts at representing these antifeminist men.

I've cut down the first part a lot because it's getting verbose and its information now repeats in the next one. The Korea Herald article is no longer necessary here since The JoongAng mentions the same report with more details. The government's response to the gender gap and the quote from a rally participant were added. How does this look? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it works well. We could just add that men worried that those government programs give women unfair advantage. I think we could also add the glass ceiling index of Korea if there are any articles related to show that there are lack of senior women who earn a lot of money. The relation of falling behind their female peers and the conscription I mentioned earlier could be added too. Someone123454321 (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

These are already present in the second part, particularily in Since the 2020s, there has also been an increase in Korean men who argue they are victims of reverse discrimination. and other sentences. The military service is mentioned in the next sentence. Adding another one of these would be redundant.

I couldn't find the glass ceiling index, but Choe Sang-Hun's article writes that "Women make up only 5.2 percent of the board members of publicly listed businesses, compared with 28 percent in the United States." This statistic has a proper citation to The Economist article. How about adding this to above suggestion and updating the Wikipedia article now? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I meant connecting the two sentences like "falling behind their female peers due to the the compulsory military service exclusive to men" but you can make the choice. I think we could add what you found after the statistics about gender pay gap if you want to. Since there is already an article that directly relates this topic to the gender pay gap, I think we could update the information too. South Korea was ranked 101th Globally in 2025 report. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2025.pdf Someone123454321 (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

We can change "the assumption that they are falling behind their female peers." to "These factors made the men assume they are falling behind their female peers." so that we can correlate these statements more apparently. I think the sources also back up this change.

If we are to cite World Economic Forum, the best course here would be citing the 2021 version, since that's the one mentioned by the current example (the SCMP article). This one seems like it. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf Are we good to proceed with these changes? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Emiya Mulzomdao Alright, I think we're good. Someone123454321 (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and applied the changes. This edit removes the now-unused sources from the old version, so the issues about them are resolved as a result. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Regarding the statement "been analyzed as a symptom of gender inequality in the country."

There were no citations directly saying that "this is a symptom of gender inequality". Also, there were many sources that mentioned related to this topic, and the fact that one of this theory's origin is Megalia, a website that has been accused of promoting misandry, or a female supremacy group by major sources such as YTN, does not help either. I feel that statements such as "a symptom of gender conflicts in the nation" or something similar to that is more precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone123454321 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I meant frustration of men in Korea when I said sources mentioned something, by the way. Someone123454321 (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I also think that we should just add that it has been criticized as an antifeminist backlash movement instead of saying that it is an antifeminist conspiracy theory. We don't know the theorist's true intents, but the fact that it has been criticized for being antifeminist is a fact. Someone123454321 (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Since there wasn't any replies, I am going to go ahead and make the edit. If anyone wants to argue otherwise, please feel free to do so. Someone123454321 (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone123454321, you know I'm here. I was waiting. Let's not repeat this again.

Before we move on. How about cleaning up this page. We shouldn't leave this page a mess like this. This page should be kept focused. It'd be great if we close some discussions with {{collapse top}} like "About the gender inequality tag in the article" (which went off-topic too far) and some of above (which are either already resolved or duplicated) so that we can focus on only this, one at a time. Would you be fine if I close those? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Let's do that then. Someone123454321 (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe Megalia should definitely be mentioned in the lead, since the majority of tje related sources mentions it, and that's what the theorists are arguing about. In fact, the finger pinching is even called Megal-hand. There were also no citations that directly said that this was analyzed as a symtom of gender inequality in the country, although few might have mentioned it. Someone123454321 (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I've closed the discussions with templates as I said. While at it, I also merged the section below to here since it's also about the lead.

The guidelines on the lead, particularly MOS:OPEN, states it should identify the topic without being too specific. With that out, take notice there are various individuals in this article addressed by theorists as the culprits of spreading the hand gesture, such as employees of businesses like Renault, which are not related to Megalia. Also take a look at sources like this Hankook Ilbo article, which refers to the groups as "Megalia and etc.", as in plural and general terms. With these, it is most desirable to refer to these altogether with an umbrella term, which is why it's attributed to "radical feminist groups".

Another point, and this is important, is that Megalia ceased to exist in 2017 as many sources point out.[1][2] "users of Megalia have propagated these hidden messages..." is misleading and contradicts the sources here, since it's widely agreed this group no longer existed when this started in 2021. I can't really agree with this change when it does not reflect the overall article. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Megalia in this topic is definitely not too specific. In fact, it is one of the most important factors in this topic, as it is what the theorists are claiming to be the sign's origin of. Even in the Hankook Ilbo article you provided, it says "해당 손 모양은 '메갈리아'(2015~2017년 활동한 급진적 페미니스트들의 온라인 커뮤니티) 등에서 한국 남성 성기를 비하하고 조롱하는 의미로 사용하고 있다." which clearly states that the finger sign is from Megalia. The fact that Megalia is now defunct does not change anything, as the fact that the theorists are referring to this gesture as Megal hand does not change. Although we could also write that Megalia ceased to exist, it should definitely mentioned in the lead. One would have to look for articles related to this topic that does not mention Megalia. Someone123454321 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, this still doesn't address that the change doesn't flow well with that paragraph and the plural term makes the mention redundant.

There's one way to do this. This article's sources associate Megalia with the GS25 incidents much more than the other examples, since their reports include the theorists' claims about the poster having implications of the website like the acronym theory.[3] With this information, it's possible to make this change.

Extended content

−

The theory first gained prominence in May 2021 when convenience store chain [[GS25]] faced accusations of allegedly subtly including a hand signal that disparaged penises in an advertisement. The company retracted it and issued an apology.

+

The theory first gained prominence in May 2021 when convenience store chain [[GS25]] faced accusations of allegedly subtly including a hand signal that disparaged penises in an advertisement and promoted the now-defunct [[Megalia]]. The company retracted it and issued an apology.

This will place the mention of Megalia near the part about the theory's origin (something you mentioned), doesn't hurt the flow, and keeps the lead section's concision. What do you think about this? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if they are arguing that Megalia has been promoted. Just like what the Hankook Ilbo you provided has stated, the argument is that people are using the symbol that Megalia has used to mock men's penis. I think we should put it like "Radical Feminist Groups, prominently Megalia, have propagated these hidden messages to humiliate men with small penises. Megalia was shut down in 2017, although criticism of the group and its symbolism has reportedly persisted." or something like that. Someone123454321 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, as I've said before, the line "been analyzed as a symptom of gender inequality in the country." is oversimplicating things as we've also talked about before, and I don't think that there were any sources that directly stated this. Most of them just brought gender pay gap and ranking low in Global Gender Gap Index as a background. Someone123454321 (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

That's too long. Intricate details are something to be present in the body of the article, not the lead section. The concision is key.

Accusations against the GS25 case include the crescent resembling SNU feminist group's logo and the tagline having an acronym of the website's name. The conspiracy theories are claiming it is promoting feminist movement groups, including Megalia. Refer to this Kyunghyang Shinmun article and Jinsook Kim's journal. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Then we should be mentioning that proponents of the theory are prominently claiming that users of Megalia has propagated these hidden messages to humiliate men with small penises to make is shorter. It's not just the GS25. The Maple Story Scandal(https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/A2023112710470003228)(there are more links if you need), National Police Agency(https://www.chosun.com/national/national_general/2021/05/04/EWQNX4TFIJCOBL44WWVY6ENIY4/), Kyochon(http://xn--hankyung-2c48a.com/article/2021050793447), as well as most of the cases that has a news article have Megalia mentioned as what the theorists are claiming. Also, your sources said "남성혐오사이트인 메갈리아 로고와 비슷한 것이 아니냐는 의혹이다.", which just mentions Megalia as the Misandric site instead of other feminist movement groups. Someone123454321 (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's not that Megalia is not mentioned, but that there are other sources that attribute these to general feminist societies or others.[4][5][6] Referring to it as "radical feminist groups" covers them, while "users of Megalia" does not. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

But you can't deny that most of the sources will directly connect this specifically to Megalia, just like few that you have given before. Also, even in these sources you gave, they are very likely to be referring to Megalia when they say "expreme femenost groups" or something. But still, there might be a possibility for otherwise, and that's why I proposed to put the word "most proponently" in there. Someone123454321 (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, as I've talked about before, there is no sources saying that this is a symptom of gender inequality in South Korea, and we should just fix the sentence to "It has been criticized for being an antifeminist backlash in Korea" or something like that. We talked about this before, and just saying that it is simply a symptom of gender inequality is oversimplification. Someone123454321 (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to be comprehensive and concise, which is why "radical feminist groups" is used. It shouldn't be too specific to misrepresent its scope, for which I already mentioned MOS:OPEN. Wikipedia also shouldn't make assumption on the sources. We only describe what's at hands here.

The bit about gender inqueality is spread across the article, such as Pressian's Park Sanghyeok claimed that the industry's irresistance to the conspiracy theory stemmed from its skewed population over male demographics; according to Game Industry White Paper published by Korea Creative Content Agency, in 2022, only 19.1% of video game industry workers in South Korea were female. This is sourced to this article. I really wish we'd focus one topic at a time, given that this whole discussion has dragged a lot because you tried overloading the work. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

First of all, that Pressian source talks about how there are more male video game industry workers in Korea. That is just a skew in demographic, and not a gender inequality. For example, Webtoon has a skewed demographic towards female artists, but we don't call that a gender inequality. We've talked about this before, and it is more than simply just that. We'll talk about this later. Also, Megalia is one of the most important core of this topic and the majority of claims mention it. "Most prominently Megalia" is not too specific. I could bring 2 articles for every related article that does not mention Megalia and instead says radical feminist groups. How about just like you proposed, we say "The theory first gained prominence in May 2021 when convenience store chain GS25 faced accusations of allegedly subtly including a hand signal that disparaged penises, which was also the claimed to be the logo of Megalia in an advertisement. The company retracted it and issued an apology. Since then, numerous organizations were met with similar accusations and announced public apologies." Someone123454321 (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The Pressian article writes about how the industry only caters to male players at expense of the others, not just about the demographic.

That addition is long-winded. Concision is important in the lead, as I said earlier. We have to shorten it whenever it's possible. This can be done with "and promoted the defunct Megalia" or something to similar effect without losing the meaning. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

No. Industry cattering to certain demographic does not relate to the sexism in the country. We've talked about this before when editing the background section. I've even given you an example. Webtoon industry both has skewed ratio of readers and creators being women, but nobody calls that a sexism and it isn't. The same can be said about cosmetic industry, Kdrama industry, etc etc. The only other thing mentioned in the article was about how 김민성 claimed some of the games were moving according to male-dominated community's claims, and that still cannot equate to gender inequality in South Korea as a whole. We's also talked about the articles mentioning men in Korea's suffrage, and this topic is too complicated for that. Also, we don't know if the theorists claimed that the pinching sign was prompting Megalia. Most of the sources said that they claimed it was depicting Megalia's logo, and the fact that Megalia is now defendant does not change the claim. I feel like the change I proposed was not even long or complicated compared to yours either. Someone123454321 (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, your sources did not even say that the gaming industry only listens to male demographics. It said parts of the gaming companies put more weight on men's voices. First of all, it would be very wrong to say that this whole theory has been analyzed as a symptom of sexism in Korea, and instead it is just companies listening to what their major customers are claiming. Also, the sentence that I proposed to add was "which was also the claimed to be the logo of Megalia in an advertisement.", which is not that long. Someone123454321 (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, when I said complicated, I meant too complicated to be included in the lead with just a sentence. Someone123454321 (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Where is this claim about Webtoon, cosmetic, K-drama, and other things coming from? Is this your opinion? We have to stick to the sources, not our own thought. That is what we've talked about before, if you're wondering.

The bit about gender equality is not based on just that one Pressian article, but an aggregation of many sources spread across the page, such as this Hankyoreh article crediting it to gender discrimination. Do you have a better expression to recapitulate these sentiments about gender inequality than the current lead? Wikipedia is a work in progress, and it's not desirable to flat out remove things just because you think it isn't right.

I've reverted your addition on the claims since you copy-and-pasted the existing line, which is not a good look. I did add a journal to extend that part, however. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I gave you the sources before back when we were doing Rfc, but I'll provide them again. In one study of 80 Webtoon Originals, about 65.6% of distinct authors were female, and In North America, about 64% of Webtoon users are female. Similarly, in Korea, approximately 90% of TV drama screenwriters are women, and it was noted that most of the consumers were women too and that the industry aims at these demographics, and listens to them. However, I could not find anything that even says something similar to this being sexism against men. Also, the article you provided literally said "반페미니즘 집단과 이들에게 효능감을 부여하는 기업의 잘못이라는 점을." That isn't relating this to the sexism inside Korea. It is criticizing the companies and the theorists whom the author identified as anti-feminists. Someone123454321 (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

sources: https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/innovations-in-digital-comics/E7F321812D3D20FC303E4A1783E24928?utm_

https://www.360iresearch.com/library/intelligence/k-webtoon

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joanmacdonald/2019/05/23/with-more-female-screenwriters-do-korean-tv-dramas-pass-the-bechdel-test/?utm_

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/entertainment/20210128/young-asian-women-most-loyal-hallyu-consumers-survey Someone123454321 (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The full sentence of what you quoted is 잊지 말자. ‘집게손’ 논란은 일차적으로 여성을 차별하고 배제하는 반페미니즘 집단과 이들에게 효능감을 부여하는 기업의 잘못이라는 점을. Why do you leave out the part that says "discrimininating women"?

These sources you brought mention the statistics, but do not come with the statement saying that this is unrelated to sexism (unless I've missed this part in these). You're the one who add that interpretation. The lack of mention is not equal to the aruthor saying this does not originate from sexism. This, on top of that the sources are unrelated to this article's topic.

I've reverted your edit because you copy-and-pasted the references again. Please don't do that. I also removed the "they argued..." since it looks awkward, the section is already prefaced by "according to authors who consider it false...", and peer-reviewed journals are generally considered reliable. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

"잊지 말자. ‘집게손’ 논란은 일차적으로 여성을 차별하고 배제하는 반페미니즘 집단과 이들에게 효능감을 부여하는 기업의 잘못이라는 점을." still links this to the groups that the author saw as antifeminists and the companies rather than the sexism in the country itself. Also, the sources that you have brought did not come with the statement saying that this is relating to sexism sexism either. The lack of mention means that we do not have sources for the line "analyzed to be the symtom of gender inequality." Someone123454321 (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

This all started because you claim this lead does not concern gender equality. Why do you keep repeating whatever I say and throwing back at me? This kind of reactionary argument does not help building consensus.

There's more, though. I've reverted the references you are trying to add because they don't look right. Are you using a large language model? Do you review what you do? This is an important matter. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

What? I gave your words back to you to make an argument, and that does not go against Wikipedia policies. I've reviewed all the sources that I have found, and using large language models to simply find my references does not go against Wikipedia policies either. I said it is too complicated to just say 'it has been analyzed as a symtom of gender inequality' in Korea. There are more to that, and no sources said that they had analyzed this as a symtom of gender inequality although some may have mentioned it as a background. We are supposed to quote the individual scholarly sources instead of making them seem like the truth. I think that this has already been talked about before, but you are doing it again. "According to authors who consider it false" only seems to apply to "the finger pinching conspiracy theory is based on a belief among South Korean men that feminists are planning covertly to worsen their lives or harm them." Not every other sentences. Especially the paragraph that you just added. Quoting these sources is not disruptive editing. I see that you have warned me for disruptive editing, but I have an am currently discussing this matter on this talk page, and am simply adding sources and changing the wordings based on what you found problematic, and that does not fit into the section of disrupting editing either. Can you then tell me how the references that I added did not look right? Someone123454321 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You used LLM despite your history of frequently making mistakes. It even contains ChatGPT URLs. You did not disclose your use of LLM on edit summary. That is a problem.

You do not want to learn how Wikipedia works and refuse to collaborate. This goes against one of the five pillars. You have been told about this dozens of times, by multiple editors, and I'm not going to overlook your behaviors any further. If you can't understand this, I kindly ask you to leave and find projects that better suit you. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry for forgetting to delete the urls, and I promise it won't happen again. But I don't believe simply using LLMs for sources goes against the rules.I have not used them to generate any texts in the article, which would have been problematic. I was having a talk with you, and did not edit the ones being argued there. When you stated why my edit was reverted, I fixed those parts and added the changes instead of just reverting them. Someone123454321 (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

When you ask LLMs to give you answers, they sometimes make up some stuff, which is very unreliable. But that is not what I did. None of the sources I cited were generated by LLMs. One of them was just found through LLMs, and it was a source that I read through personally to double check. I deleted the url that contained ChatGPT too after I had received the feedback too. I still can't quite understand what the problem was, and if you can address it to me, then I will fix it. Someone123454321 (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I still don't think you got the point that the use of LLM should be disclosed and very careful. I recommend reading up WP:LLM for start. This page is an essay, so it's technically not enforced as a policy, but it is highly referred to as a current consensus. I've seen a lot of users getting blocked for abusing their edit privileges with LLMs.

I don't know what else to say to you other than that you should read your usertalk page again. A lot of users have posted formulated notices for you, which come with links to related guidelines. You can also use Wikipedia:Growth Team features and work on other simplier topics. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I have read through the WP:LLM and my user talkpage. The user talkpage had some talks about my edits on Megalia, but none of them really had anything to do with LLMs. WP:LLM mostly talks about how dangerous it is to use LLMS as direct sources, or make them produce edits for you. They do not say anything about simply using LLMs to find sources. Also, you keep asking me to look at my user talk page, but there are some discussions going on in your talk page too(example: talk about vandalism on Femiwiki article). (Redacted) You still haven't pointed out what part of the edit was disruptive either. Someone123454321 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@Someone123454321 You need to be more careful about casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Emiya Mulzomdao was accused of misbehavior on kowiki, but frankly I'm not seeing very good evidence for it and Emiya hasn't been disciplined there. In fact, the user who said they'd report Emiya was banned themselves. Parroting accusations verbatim and vaguely implying misconduct without good reason is considered WP:TENDENTIOUS and can eventually lead to a block if you continue. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say that the user had actually done those things. I said that the user's talk page has had something going on in the past too. I did so because the user had brought up my talk page to make points although it is something that I should look at to seek improvements. I wanted to know how my edit was seen as disruptive by the user, as I believe that I haven't gone against any Wikipedia policies. I still did not get anything other than using LLMs, which although I did use to find sources, did not use to ceeate texts for Wikipedia edits. I don't believe that this was against the rules. If there is any, then I hope to make improvements on those parts before making the edit again. Also, this is just my curiousity, but how do you see that the two users who requested this user for a ban in Kowiki was banned? Someone123454321 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I think Emiya Mulzomdao's general point that you tend to not really understand Wikipedia policy very well is accurate, and it's something I've said to you multiple times. To my understanding, this is why they're bringing up your talk page; to illustrate your past issues with this.

On the other hand, you looking to bring up personal attacks from other people that seem quite poorly supported is WP:ASPERSIONS. I didn't say that the user had actually done those things. This is just a thin excuse; why even bring this up if you're not even sure if it's valid feedback? I've had people make nonsense accusations against me before, should that be counted against me? This is why we recommend people to not cast aspersions.

I will say that using AI to find sources is not prohibited. However, you've had issues with using AI excessively in the past, so even I'm skeptical of your use of it.

If you go to the profile of the user (not the IP) who posted the comment saying they'd request Emiya be blocked, you'll see the block message. Need to scroll through edit history for that talk page as they've annoyingly made their username in their signature not clickable. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I just mentioned the talks on the user to tell that my lack of knowledge in the past does not make my point weaker in itself, although one could learn from them. I have become more careful in the use of LLMs, and am currently only using them to find sources. I think I asked LLM before about how much should I wait in talk page before I make the edit, and now I learned that I should not take their advices on these matter. I will be more careful when bringing up someone's history. Someone123454321 (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

As a side note, it's been many months now that this back and forth has been going on. Gains have been increasingly marginal; this talk page is excruciatingly long.

I really think time would be better spent on other things. Anything but the gender war. Korea-related articles are very often in an awful state. Priorities feel extremely misaligned to me. Why pour all this time into this when there are more important things to work on. Korea has more to it than this. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I actually agree with your point. I thank you for your work in other Korean projects and the fact that you are trying to improve Korea related articles. I think a 3rd opinion on the debate that's been going on will be a lot of help to end this long talk, and I would like to hear your opinion on it.

In this talk page, the arguments was that Megalia, the site that was almost always mentioned in the sources related to this article, should be on the lead. Emiya Argued that the line "users of Megalia have propagated these hidden messages..." would be wrong as Megalia ceased to exist. Emiya then proposed saying "The theory first gained prominence in May 2021 when convenience store chain GS25 faced accusations of allegedly subtly including a hand signal that disparaged penises in an advertisement and promoted the now-defunct Megalia. The company retracted it and issued an apology." instead, but I argued that we do not know if the theorists were promoting Megalia, and that Megalia being defunct does not change what the theorists were arguing for. I then proposed saying 'most prominently Megalia' rather than just 'Megalia', but Emiya argued that it was being too specific. So, I proposed saying "The theory first gained prominence in May 2021 when convenience store chain GS25 faced accusations of allegedly subtly including a hand signal that disparaged penises, which was also the claimed to be the logo of Megalia in an advertisement. The company retracted it and issued an apology. Since then, numerous organizations were met with similar accusations and announced public apologies." Emiya argued that it was too long winded.

Other debate was about whether we should include the line "has been analyzed as a symptom of gender inequality in the country." or not. I argued that there isn't a source saying that they have analyzed this to be the symptom of gender inequality, although some may have mentioned it as a background. I also argued that this topic is too complicated to just label it as a symptom of gender inequality, like how we talked about in the Rfc. Emiya brought up two sources, (https://www.pressian.com/pages/articles/2024062117272107685), (https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/opinion/column/1147953.html).

The first one showed how the video game industry has a skewed demographics towards male userbase, and I argued that a demographic being skewed does not equate to the gender inequality. Emiya argued that "The Pressian article writes about how the industry only caters to male players at expense of the others, not just about the demographic." Emiya also brought the second source to show that the Pressian article is not the only one that talks about this. I argued that the second source did not say anything about the gender inequality in Korea generally either, and was about criticizing what the author thought was an antifeminist group and the companies cattering to them. The article also says opinion column too, now that I look at it. Emiya argued that "The lack of mention is not equal to the aruthor saying this does not originate from sexism."

There was another talk about how in the claims, individual sources seemed to be labeled as facts, and that they should be quoted. Emiya argued that the line "According to authors who consider it false" perfects everything, and I argued that that line only seems to refer to " the finger pinching conspiracy theory is based on a belief among South Korean men that feminists are planning covertly to worsen their lives or harm them.", which is the first sentence, and the second paragraph, which was also mostly sourced with individual scholarly sources. The only source that was not an individual scholaly source in the second paragraph(https://www.hankookilbo.com/NewsLetter/herspective) seemed to be different from regular 한국일보 articles, but a seperate section called 뉴스레터, which numbers of the channels seemed to be an individual work. (ex: 조태성의 북앤이슈, 고은경의 애니로그). Emiya argued that this was included inthe line "According to the authors who consider it false".

The last one is the one where I used LLM to find my sources to add that criticisms of Megalia remaind even after its closure in the first paragraph of claims section.

This is the general summary of the discussions, but I may have been biased as I was also one of the participants. You can read the talk yourself if you are in doubt. Someone123454321 (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It's like a word or two in the lead... The lead is pretty short that readers will find it like in the next paragraph anyway. You just provided like 7 paragraphs of background reading for this but like the impact on readers will be small. That's my opinion: I don't really care about this and don't think you should either. Take a step back and think about the impact of this and why you're doing it grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

grapesurgeon is right. There is no reason to dig through other language's Wikipedia except pointing fingers and making aspersions. You need to knock it off, Someone123454321. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, if you found it agressive, I am sorry for that. As I have stated above, it was to tell you that anyone has something going on in their talk page, although we could learn from them, and that you should just focus on making your point in this matter specifically rather than talking about my past deeds. I also happened to have made a summary of our arguments, so maybe we can find the resolution here. I feel like we've been arguing for too long without making any decisions. Can you tell me what you found that fit the definition of disruptive editing on my edit that you reverted? Someone123454321 (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it'd be better if this conversation is dropped. Litigating this helps nobody. Focus on other articles (especially those not on the gender war). grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I think these changes, especially the one with "analyzed as a symptom of gender inequality", can change some views. I don't think that my argument is too wrong either. But when I do make the edit with the sources, or erase edits without sources, they get removed for 'disruptive editing'. I don't want to take this thing too long either, but I feel like some changes need to be made on the things that I commented. That's why we were having a discussion. Someone123454321 (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Up to you. You spent like 6 months arguing about only the gender war, and honestly it hasn't resulted in all that much change. In that time I rewrote some of the most major articles about Korean history. Much less arguing, much more productivity.

I don't get how you can reflect on all this and feel good about it. South Korea is mocked because of the gender war. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm doing this so that South Korea will get less mocked by fixing some stuff that treat individual sources like facts, sentences without direct citations, etc. It'd probably be more productive to work on other stuff, but I'm currently not finished with what I was doing here, so... Someone123454321 (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. It's the participation in the gender war that is mocked. This is just an extension of the gender war; you're attached to this issue and can't let it go. Six months of doing exactly what the world is mocking, achieving not much, and no desire to change direction... grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I have no desire to change direction. If someone makes a good point, then I will take it. The mention of gender inequality in this article is an example. I am making points on what I believe should be like according to the Wikipedia policies, and I wouldn't say that Emiya and I was going through a gender war. We just held onto our points. Sure, there were things that I could have done better but I am not ashamed of the points I made or things I did either. Someone123454321 (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

[7] You're doing this because of the gender war. One of my superiors back in military used slangs originated from Megalia which got me to know this site. She really put me through hard times, so I have a biased on Megalia, as well as feminism in Korea in general. It is patently obvious what is going on here and why you persisted in doing this for 6 months despite glacially slow and ineffective progress. You are doing exactly what the world is mocking. Done replying now; will not engage with you any further here. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon Yeah, still do not get what point you are trying to make. That was on Megalia, not this topic. Also, the world is mocking? Nah, people don't care enough about this thing to mock. I'm wasn't having a war with another editor either. I'm not ashamed of what I did here. I am trying to make points on what I think could be improved on, and there is nothing wrong with that. Someone123454321 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Can yoi please please explain why you are finding something as disruptive editing and what part of my edits fit into the disruptive editing instead of just reverting every single one of my edits? You wrote that lots of reasons were given, but really wrote nothing. That edit wasn't even part of this discussion either. I'd like to stay on topic too, so please provide the reasons what you found to have fit the definition of disruptive editing on two of my edits that you reverted. Someone123454321 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

If there isn't a reply in 3 days about the disagreements to my points, I am going to go ahead and make the edit. Even after I make the edit, please feel free to join the discussion. Someone123454321 (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Still doing this... I'll post on your talk page later explaining my earlier message. Let's nip this in the bud. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if the discussion was too long or unclear. Here are my arguments in the article.

1. Mention Megalia in the lead.

2. Cite individual sources.

3. Add that Megalia was also criticized after writing it is now defunct.(Changed the wordings after you said it was repetitive, brought new citations after you said the same citations were used, deleted the url that contained LLM after you pointed it out, but still got reverted so...)

4. Delete or do something with the line "has been analyzed as a symptom of gender.

5. The most recent edit I made that was reverted without an explanation.

I feel like some of these topics went off topic, so I'd prefer sticking to the first one in this, and make a new talk page for the other ones. How about that? Someone123454321 (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd appreciate any opinions or input. Someone123454321 (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

[8]

I don't think you've properly thought your behavior through. Seriously, think of what you're doing and why you're doing it. Is this productive and worth it? Are you respecting others' time with helpful work? Are you doing this mostly because you hate certain groups? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

1. Adding it myself.

2. Per MOS:LEADCITE, this is only necessary if claims in the lead are likely to be contested. Someone123454321 you can add refs to individual sentences in the lead if you feel they are likely to be controversial.

3. I don't feel this is necessary to add. We can say that Megalia is controversial. I'll handle adding this.

4. Just deleting it. It's not supported enough by body.

5. [9] is the edit in question right? I'm readding bits of this edit but the rest I think are just verbose without adding much more nuance. The tweet bit is TMI about a very minor dispute.

To be clear: this particular comment isn't that difficult to address, it's the constant pestering that's the problem. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input! Someone123454321 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

---

We should mention Megalia in the lead, as the sources in the article almost always brings up Megalia when talking about the finger pinching theroy, and several articles have named it Megal hand instead if finger pinching hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone123454321 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

And we should also mention that this theory has been criticized by the media for being antifeminist in the lead. Someone123454321 (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Nominating for deletion — starting AfD discussion

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines Theatelf (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Spreading conspiracy theorys Theatelf (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This isn't how deletion discussions work. Read WP:AFD and do it properly if you're going to do it at all. Btw there's like 0% chance the deletion will succeed; notability is decided by coverage and the coverage is very clearly enough. If you're going to nominate it, you're welcome to, but it'll be WP:SNOWCLOSEd (i.e. instantly closed) grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you create an account solely just for this nomination? Also, are you @Asereardscon? That account did a malformed AfD nomination almost 24 hours before you did as the first edit.

— NotCory (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)