Talk:Taegukgi rallies

Korea Low‑importance

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

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Article Name

I see no issues with notability but am curious why it's at this name rather than just "Taegeukgi Protests". I'm guessing it's because of 2016–17 South Korean protests which are only named that because there have been other South Korean protests. This would not appear to be an issue with Taegeukgi Protests. I'd move but since I lack any competancy in South Korea and have limited general knowledge, I'm deferring. As long as I'm making notes, I'll show the reference issues and lack of clear pointer to the larger South Koren protect article. Pinging @Jchunucla, Helaine (Wiki Ed), Elysia (Wiki Ed), Ucla19eunice, and Minsw01:. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 it looks like this is a daughter article to that one. The content covered in this article pertains to 2016–17_South_Korean_protests#Protests_to_rally_for_Park_Geun-hye. I agree it needs to be retitled in some way, at least to conform to MOS for capitalization. I think retitling to "Protests against the impeachment of Park Geun-hye" would be acceptable. Thoughts? Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elysia (Wiki Ed) I didn't make it explicit but yes this is obviously a daughter article to the 2016-17 protests. I really don't have a good grasp of Korean or South Korea, beyond what I read when looking at international news, to know if "Protests against the impeachment of Park Geun-hye" or "Taegeukgi Protests" would be the correct MOS name. The latter name is much shorter which is always a virtue in my mind. Perhaps Jchunucla has a sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jchunucla hasn't made any edits in more than a month, so I don't know how responsive they would be to a ping. How about Taegukgi rallies? Many more hits on Google (31.7k) than Taegukgi protests (13.8k). In addition to being more common, I think rally conveys the event better. Protest makes it sound like they're protesting against the flag, but it seems like they were patriotic gatherings. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elysia (Wiki Ed) That works for me. I'll make the move anticipating it will be uncontroversial. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think ""Taegeukgi" Protests against the Impeachment of South Korean president, Park Geun-Hye" is the most appropriate title. Thanks Barkeep49 and Elysia (Wiki Ed) for your feedback.

Pinging Elysia (Wiki Ed). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 and Jchunucla: I think that the brevity of the current title is preferable and it is likely fine where it is at this point. Per Wikipedia policy on naming articles, the title of an article should be "no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." However, there are probably some redirects that we could create that would help land readers at this page if they're searching for a related name. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on a policy level that the current name is probably a good one. Redirects do feel like a good solution for other search terms. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Korean Neoliberal Extremists??

Is there really an organisation called the "Union of Korean Neoliberal Extremists"? What is the Korean title? —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 01:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On further research this appears, unsurprisingly, to be a political slur that has been passed off here and on the Korean Wiki for about two years as the translation of 어버이연합 or "Parent Federation". I have edited it appropriately. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 01:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

After fixing the above and reading through the rest of the article, I have also tagged it for copyediting and POV issues, and bumped it down to start-class. In particular, I am concerned about the POV of statements like the following:

The characteristics of the reactionism can be attributed to the past-oriented attitude of denying the present and turning to the "good past”. The “good past” of Taegeukgi protestors had been projected through Park Geun-hye.

Yet, it is not relevant because the staunch Taegeukgi crowds that blindly support Park Geun-hye were formed from Park Chung-hee advocates as well.

Waving Taegeukgi is a strategy of the extreme right Taegeukgi protestors employed to represent their own definition of patriotism, democracy and nationalism and merged it with a sense of nostalgia of their glorious past.

These are cited and represent plausible scholarly readings but they need to be marked as such and not stated as encyclopaedic fact; they should also be rewritten in a neutral tone. Cheers —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 02:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Worrying obvious POV and poor grammar. 5 years later, this issue has still not been remedied. seefooddiet (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]