Talk:Pyo Chang-won

[Untitled]

The article is written by someone with an obvious bias. Most of the edits appeared to be done by one "Veritas et aequitas Korea" and contains loaded terms; "self-taught and self-proclaimed", "assertive speech", "taunted the journalist of his inability to verify plagiarism in English dissertations and publications", weasel words; "well known for causing many political scandals". Sections on "Seongju Speech on Francis Spaight" and "Group Rapist Accusation of Political Opponents" has been given undue weight, considering nothing is written about this individual's work other than supposed controversies, which is an layout issue. Furthermore, "Mediawatch" which seems to be a sole reference to the supposed "additional plagiarism" and appears fishy, to say the least. And the article itself is written by Byun Hee-jae, political pundit and member of the far-right Korean Patriots' Party. There is clear POV issue here. Either one should cite relevant and reliable sources to the claims made on the page, and change the wording to reflect the NPOV, or delete the claims made in the article. Considering this article is the Biographies of living persons more stringent standard is obviously required. Spring3390 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

They are all verified facts. Mediawatch or not, Pyo himself admitted his thesis is a plagiarism. None of the articles were written by Byun hee-jae, and Byun hee-jae was not affiliated with any political party at the time. Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Reported. Thanks. Spring3390 (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see each basis for removing sections on this article until the next week, March 28th. Otherwise, I'll assume that there is no valid basis to remove them and re-add them. Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikitree

Is Wikitree a reliable source? Based on the name, I expect that it contains user-generated content. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Can twitters be reliable sources? If so, many wikitree sources can be replaced by these two twitter messages from Pyo Changwon himself.

• [1] - https://twitter.com/DrPyo/status/351739536398757888
• [2] - https://twitter.com/DrPyo/status/352342399994961920

Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Political opponents

Is it really necessary/informative to have a section on Pyo made a remark on his political opposition of having the mind of a group rapist? There doesn't appear to have been any long-term impact or significant analysis. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This caused a lot of controversy and has gotten wide-spread press coverage. It is also one of many unethical political acts by Pyo Changwon, such as hosting a public display of artwork that shows former President Park in nudity. It is my opinion that it is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. There's more of these controversial issues by Pyo, but I guess people just don't have the time. Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

In the Korean wiki, listed controversies are,

• Plagiarism
• Backing down on his pledge not to engage in politics.
• Speech on the Francis Speight in Seongju
• Exposing parliamentary members who are against impeachment of former president Park Geun-hye.
• Using neutralization theory of criminology to argue that his opponents have the mind of group rapists.

Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Restoring Content

As there has been no challenges for a significant time, I will restore the removed content. In the restored content, all sources from Wikitree will be replaced with Pyo's twitters. Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You have a total of 107 edits, mostly focused on this article. An editor with "truth and justice" as their name should not be using Wikipedia to tell the world about the subject's problems. Per WP:3RRNO, excess negativity that contravenes WP:BLP can and should be removed, without regard for the normal "three revert" rule. It is not acceptable to pile on the crap at Wikipedia. Just stick to a few clear facts with secondary reliable sources. Stuff like "Pyo Changwon instigated numerous political controversies" cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Find a secondary source, or better still, do not editorialize—let the facts speak for themselves. How many politicians worldwide have been in a verbal fight in parliament? Adding "almost got into a physical fight" does not cut it. It's piled on crap. The "The Dirty Sleep" section could be rewritten to show the subject as a champion of artistic freedom and a shrewd publicist. If rewritten, the material might be suitable for the article, but if the result is that the article looks like an attack page, the negativity will be removed.

This topic was mentioned at WP:AN and dubious text was removed by power~enwiki. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed content that can be seen as editorial material. What's left is fact for fact content. If you think it's not true, challenge it, and I will provide sources you cannot deny. Also, if you think Pyo hosting the Dirty Sleep is the act of a champion of artistic freedom and a shrewd publicist, you can provide a source and write it up. Otherwise, it's fact for fact that President Moon condemned him for this event, female members of his own political party condemned him and his own political party called up an ethics committee and banned him from political posts for six months.

As said, if you have anything positive to say about him, including those that involve these controversies, get a source and write it up. Write the truth, instead of trying to get it hidden. Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be fairly easy to get a topic ban at WP:AN if an WP:SPA were found to be using Wikipedia to pile crap on a politician. Remove the "controversies" label and stick to the facts. A balanced article would not list every point of negativity. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

They are facts. Also check out the Korean version of this article, which also has a controversy section[3]. And also the article on Pyo Changwon on the Korean version of Wikipedia[4]. There's so much controversy surrounding him that there is an entire article dedicated to the subject[5]. He's also told the press that he's intervened on his own article at Wikipedia[6] and changed information. It's true that this article needs some more general and positive info, but removing negative but significant facts about him is not the solution to balancing this article. Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Pyo's admission of plagiarism

@Johnuniq Plagiarism is not a simple accusation. Pyo himself admitted to it on his blog and on his twitter.[7] You are deliberately distorting facts by removing this Pyo's admission of guilt. Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If you had some experience with a broad range or articles it might be possible to form a view about how content should be written. However, stuff like "X admitted Y" is typical blogosphere attack crap that is not WP:DUE in an article like this (with some extremely rare exceptions such as an admission in a significant legal case). People with an emotional involvement with a topic often try to over-state the case because they imagine that layer upon layer of muck will convince the world. Life is not so simple because many people are sufficiently sophisticated that they would simply roll their eyes when viewing some old versions of this article because it was obviously written as an attack piece. Sticking to simple facts (without over-egging) is best, and it is compulsory for WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)