Talk:Dog poop girl

Dog poop girl

This story is a case study in the power of the Internet to expose someone publicly as punishment for a perceived social affront. This is similar to the Star Wars Kid incident, except that the goal in that case was ridicule and amusement, not punishment.

• The issue of punishment fitting the crime / mob justice is raised.

• The issue of the right to privacy in a global community is raised.

I would like the chance to expand on what has been started here to discuss commentary on these issues and how this incident fits into a larger social context. The story's profile has already been raised by the article in the Washington Post and in other print journalism sources (to be added as references later).

The photo is also an Internet phenomenon, having been widely disseminated and remixed. Breakall 17:36, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

Poop and shit

Is "poop" somehow less literal than "shit" as a translation of 똥? Seems to me, since euphemisms for 똥 are much less idiomatic in Korean than euphemisms for shit in English, "poop" is at least as literal as "shit" -- if not more so. -- Visviva 03:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I will readily admit that I am not a Korean speaker -- so I could not tell you on my own.

"Dog poop girl" was used in the Washington Post story, so I felt comfortable using it. I know there are more than one translations of the derogatory name given to the woman, and so I have redirected "Dog shit girl" and "gae-ttong-nyeo" to this page. Please let me know if you think this arrangement does not suffice. Breakall 12:12, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

That seems fine. I was actually referring to the parenthetical note that gae-ttong-nyeo is "literally" dog-shit-girl. -- Visviva 12:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks -- I eliminated the superfluous translation.

Also, I have redirected "Gae-ttong-nyue" to this article -- should it be "Gae-ttong-nyeo"? Breakall 13:18, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

The more redirects the merrier, but nyeo is the correct romanization, per the Revised Romanization of Korean. Cheers for your hard work! -- Visviva 14:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, the other romanization now redirects as well. Breakall 15:29, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

VfD

This article was unsuccessfully nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dog poop girl for a record. Postdlf 07:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to all who voted to keep! Breakall 14:02, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

I don't understand this edit notation: (deprod, survived AfD around this time last year, should be discussed again.) How do I go about starting this type of discussion? Vagabond997 12:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Edited Picture

Should we really be using the picture with the girl's face blurred out? Her face has already been shown around the Internet, I doubt that being on Wikipedia unedited will save the girl any grief. If we're to blur this picture, are we to blur pictures of other people that have famous via embarassing means (e.g. The Star Wars Kid)? I feel that an unedited picture adds authenticity to this article and more encyclopedic. It may be "nice" to edit it, but unprofessional. She got infamous due to the picture, and as such it should be the original. --SeizureDog 12:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SeizureDog. I have replaced the blurred image with the original image. Breakall 04:23, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

Was this image removed? I do not see it in the article any longer. Hall Monitor 20:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it was deleted as a copyright violation. Check the logs at WP:COPYVIO and WP:IfD. -- Visviva 01:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reuploaded the image. How can you have an article about a picture without the picture itself? It is fair use in its true form. --SeizureDog 01:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This entry mentioned in the NYTimes

"On Wikipedia there's already a 'dog poop girl' entry logged, and a movement to delete it". New York Times. July 30, 2005.

Merging without discusion?

Being bold is great, but merging an article into oblivion without any discussion seems to cross a line. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Especially given that this merge has been reverted several times by different users (including myself), and is therefore clearly contested. PC78 22:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Repetition?

I quote from the article: "In early June 2005, the woman, who appears to be in her 20's took her lap dog on a subway in Korea. Her dog defecated on the floor of the subway car and, when asked by other elderly riders, she rudely declined to clean up after it. Another subway rider offered the woman a tissue, which she used to clean the dog but not its waste. When other passengers suggested she clean up the mess, she ignored the requests and departed the subway at the next stop."

So were there two rounds of requesting? Or is it just that the article's poorly written? Unidentified Flying Bunny in the Sky ^Talk _Contribs 01:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Focusing the article

I propose that the lead read something like this to focus the article on the incident not the person : -

"Dog poop girl" was an incident on a South Korean subway that was recorded and published, resulting in a backlash by Internet vigilantes.

--neonwhite user page talk 16:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Popular Poop Website"

Really? Popular? Sez who? In comparison to other "poop websites", or overall? Cause I'm not buying it. 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What was it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.23.42 (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)