Talk:Nodutdol

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV claim

@Librero2109 recently undid this edit under claim of NPOV. Can you provide more detailed rationale? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no reliable sources, just opinion. Check WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

i think[...] I'm saying the majority of reliable sources would [...] Librero2109 (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADCITE; are you aware of this? Notice in countless featured-level articles, there are often no references in the lead whatsoever; that is because of this policy. Per the policy, since the claim has been challenged, we can add references to the claim and potentially put it back in the lead. Do you have concerns about neutrality? The content of the edit matches what was in the body; either way the edit is so short that there wasn't really room to be non-neutral in my opinion. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The case that you are referring to articles without references in the lead is because they are found within the article as MOS:CITELEAD says. As read in WP:CRIT to add criticism you have to include reliable source. Librero2109 (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Yes the first sentence you wrote is basically what I said. And my addition to the article is not necessarily criticism. The group is strongly left leaning and supports North Korea. Is that statement controversial or incorrect? It matches closely what is presented with sources in the body. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like Far-left and DPRK supporters are very biased. There are no reliable sources that say that they are Far-left and although they maintain sympathies with North Korea, it is not the focus of the organization. Librero2109 (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit does not say "far-left", and I didn't call them supporters of the DPRK. I wrote that they are sympathetic to NK. Please be mindful of stretching my words and interpreting my intent as POV. I am trying to summarize what is in the rest of the article; I have no opinion on the situation other than just repeating what the sources say.

And even if the NK sympathy isn't the main focus of the article, it certainly is discussed in depth in the reliable sources that are used in the body: [1][2].

WP:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've done more reading and have a counter-accusation of POV: can you point out what reliable sources call the organization "progressive"?

Furthermore, the two sources I linked above (which are from the article) are actually really unflattering to the organization. They suggest that the organization is actively pro-NK, which you claimed it's not above, and lists numerous public complaints and incidents about the organization that aren't mentioned in the article.

In addition, you cite the organization itself for a number of claims; these claims are more than innocuous, they are about the political positions of the organization. I am highly skeptical of your protectionism over this article now; if you had just let the edit slide I never would have noticed.

I may do a request for comment to get the eyes of other editors on this article so we can evaluate its POV together. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the first part of the article is the basic definition, description, and summary all at once, right? That part contains only two sentences, so that second sentence carries huge weight. Holy cow. The organization's primary goal is not to support North Korea. Anyone reading the article will get the impression that it is. Something should change. Add more the first paragraph to dilute the weight. Remove/move the offending sentence. Do something, is my suggestion.

(Since my time editing (and adminning) years ago, this encyclopedia has drifted toward a somewhat Pro-Western/Non-Western-critical vibe. It might be subconcious, or due top Western media sources being that way.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]