Talk:Xiao Zhan boycott incident
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Coderzombie (talk · contribs) on 3 May 2020. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed merge of Xiao Zhan with Boycott against Xiao Zhan Incident edit
This does not have to be another article. Can be merged with the main article itself Coderzombie (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
This article shouldn't be merged with the main article.The article is full of fake facts from unreliable sources.This article is created by the antis & has been condoning cyberbullying and should be investigated.Especially the statements regarding the effects on xiao Zhan sales.The boycotting has been a big failure in term of sales. Evidence you can see from all the official sale statistics eversince the boycotting campaign by the antis.[1][2] Please use infos and statistics.This article boycott against Xiao Zhan Incident should be deleted as it help spread anti sentiments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiagainstcyberbullying (talk • contribs) 01:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that the article itself is unnecessary. Boycott movements are very common in C- Entertainment, mostly fueled by fans and based on rumours alone. King Cobra (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I also think that the article is unnecessary. The entire incident is based on what "fans" did, while the actor himself is not involved whatsoever. Up until now, no one has proof that these people reported the website, or any of the other applications. It seems like a blown over the edge fandom fight to me, with possible paid antis involved. The English version is badly translated, but I honestly don't think it's even worth my time to edit it. Melancholy9617 (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
This actually became a widely discussed topic in China... It's not just a simple boycott movement anymore- check the CN page if you can understand Chinese, it's all cited. Don't make assumptions without sources when you're not even involved in the Chinese internet... (sorry to edit this discussion again, my IP wasn't displayed and I wanted to clarify that I'm not anyone who commented before. Sorry if I did anything wrong) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.52.74.197 (talk) 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the title of this article is not proper. Because there is no solid evidence which proved the 227 incident was caused by Xiao Zhan's fans' reporting AO3 at all. So we are not sure the incident is a cyberbullying or boycott yet. Also, the 227 incident is under criminal investigation in China now.心中的云 (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Here is a statement I found on AO3 web which clarified that AO3 users are not the main participants in 227 incident .[3] 心中的云 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Aftermath of the incident edit
Are there anyone willing to further edit this page to include the events ofter Feb 27? I see that the Chinese version of this page has a large amount of information while the English version seems to contain nothing about the aftermath and what happened recently. 135.0.63.16 (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
References? edit
Feedback from New Page Review process edit
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I reviewed this article for the New Pages Patrol. In light of several discussions about possible merges and unreliable sources, with many comments from anonymous IP editors, I personally recommend that any reliable and verifiable information be added to the Xiao Zhan article, and then this one should be deleted. It is a description of a largely non-notable dispute among an esoteric group of enthusiasts..
---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021 edit
 | This edit request to Boycott against Xiao Zhan Incident has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
From Legal Reading Library On March 16, 2020, the Legal Reading Library, a legal media certified by the President of the Procutorial Daily, released an article on their investigation on the incident, citing "If the situation is true, the mass of 8,000 people [reporting] should appear in the data released by the State Cyberspace Administration, but there is no relevant data to support this." [1] 73.181.232.208 (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
