Talk:Jo Koy

"Additional Info"

I did some referenceing, and re-writting, but left the majority of the original in under "Addtional Info".  _{Guy M | Talk}  22:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed entire section. It was a cut and paste from here (copyrighted page).  _{Guy M | Talk}  23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No mentions of previous wife or child

Why would his ex wife and child’s info not be included? 2603:8080:7405:E848:4D6A:9D6C:5BEA:2FB0 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Golden Globe hosting inclusion

Opening a discussion since User:Harrisonisdead and User:Crunchydillpickle removed any and all sourced content regarding Koy's poorly received hosting of the 81st Golden Globe Awards. The reception of his hosting should be included in the article especially given the immense amount of press coverage by numerous outlets. The One I Left (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the discussion! I agree that the many poor reviews should be covered in the article. I don't think they need to be in the first paragraph, however. I am happy with the single-sentence mention of the Golden Globes in the lede with a longer paragraph about his Golden Globes performance and its reception in the "Career" section. I suppose I could be convinced to include a brief mention of the negative reception in the lede, such as "In 2024, Koy hosted the 81st Golden Globe Awards and received negative reviews." Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a brief mention—this short lead doesn't need to be overwhelmed with details from this one event. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 01:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I'd support a brief mention. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the brief mention in lede, "In 2024, Koy hosted the 81st Golden Globe Awards to negative reviews" and more information in the body of the article The One I Left (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's to be included at all, the section needs significant downsizing. The article in its current form is incredibly unbalanced towards current events. The Golden Globes section is also rather repetitive, redundant, thinly sourced, and fails to remain neutral. (e.g. "Among the barbs that drew the most ire were sexist jokes involving the Barbie movie and Taylor Swift as well as tired jokes toward Meryl Streep, and off color comment towards Robert De Niro." None of this is in the attributed source, and calling the jokes "sexist" and "tired" without proper, specific attribution hurts the neutrality.)

For comparison, see how James Franco's infamous hosting bomb was addressed. The criticism is relegated to one summarizing sentence: "Numerous media viewers criticized Franco for his discontent and lack of energy on stage and the show was widely panned, with some reviewers dubbing it the worst telecast in its history." Additional space is used for neutral contextualization and for Franco's own reaction. I think this example should be the absolute ceiling for how much space is given to a host's reception, there's no need to reiterate the specifics of how each journalist reacted. Anne Hathaway, who hosted alongside him, has even less space dedicated to her reception and Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, who conversely had very strong reception, have similarly fleeting mentions. (And these are all in much longer articles as a whole, so the proportional space is even less.) Harrisonisdead (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"If it's to be included at all" Are you saying none of the Golden Globe Awards performance and reception should be included? If so that seems grossly biased. Arguable the telecast is what brought his name to prominence with many people not having heard of him before. Regardless, there has been so changes and removals, I'll update with proper sourcing regarding the "sexist", and "tired" comments because those were coming from sources. As for the double hosts, I'm not sure they are comparable to Jo Koy. His performance drew criticism for his comments about writers, allegedly sexist and offensive jokes. Franco was just bland but not offensively so. The One I Left (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I accept that mention of it belongs in the article after seeing how similar instances have been handled, but I truly think this could stand to be pared down significantly. If the consensus is that this event is notable enough to justify this much space and repetition, I don't intend on touching it: clearly there's a mismatch in perceptions regarding how prominent and notable this news event is. It seems rather transient to me, but live and let live.

That said, certain portions still do not seem like they are properly sourced: You added more sources to the aforementioned sentence, but there is still no mention in those sources of the Streep joke being "tired" or the De Niro joke being "off color." In fact, I don't see any commentary on those jokes in the attributed articles, only brief neutral mentions. And while there's significant coverage of the Barbie joke being sexist, especially because of the irony associated with making a sexist joke about that film, in the sources the only time that assertion is extended to the Taylor Swift joke is in a random tweet, so it doesn't seem appropriate to link that joke in with the reference to sexist humor. The tone also continues to come off as if the Wikipedia article itself is providing commentary. Additionally, the list of celebrities who were allegedly "stunned" is sourced from a Buzzfeed listicle and a Country Living post? Is that a necessary inclusion here? I don't think it's hard to tell why this section as a whole might come off as unprofessional or biased due to the language used and treatment of sources. Harrisonisdead (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I did have a source mentioning the Streep jokes as "tired" but it must've been removed and I can't find it. I rephrased it to say "uncomfortable jokes directed at" Streep and De Niro. Those have been properly sourced. The Taylor Swift joke was received as being sexist, despite Koy's insistance it wasn't. I think if you're a fan of Jo Koy which it sounds like you are given your wording, you might perceive it as biased but I'm just adding sourced content. Everyone on social media and in print media was talking about Koy's speech. His jokes, the alleged sexist and offensive jokes as well as the reactions. Selena Gomez and others were trending due to their reactions of his speech.The One I Left (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Golden Globes section is almost as long as the writing we have about the rest of his career, which seems pretty WP:UNDUE to me. For the sake of condensing the Golden Globes section, here are two sentences I'd remove:

• "Koy was met with criticism for putting blame on his writers during the monologue, coming after a lengthy 2023 Writers Guild of America strike." (this info is already covered by the quote from the Vulture reviewer).
• "and cited a prominent director describing Koy as a "disaster". Viewers online noted stunned reactions from the crowd from people such as Selena Gomez, Helen Mirren, Harrison Ford, Emily Blunt, Emma Stone, and Greta Gerwig." (I don't think this is needed. Also, the source is a Buzzfeed listicle of reaction gifs. Buzzfeed has no consensus on WP:RSP). Let me know if that seems reasonable and I'll axe them!

Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the Golden Globe Awards content is WP:UNDUE since it's the thing he's most known for. None of his specials or anything he's done has received as much public recognition and coverage. As for the two sentences in question:

• It looks like that sentence described what he gained criticism for, followed by a direct quote which seems appropriate to me since it gives further context.
• The list of reactions seem appropriate since they were trending, gained significant media covers, and gave context to the event. I'm open to trimming the list of names down and adding more established sources.The One I Left (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2024

Add Michael V, a famous Filipino comedian to the list of comedians who defended Jo Koy. SimpleStickman (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: Michael V. is notable, would you happen to have a secondary source that mentioned this? Sam Sailor 18:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

2024 Golden Globes section

2024 Golden Globes: 400 hundred words on •one• hosting gig? You've got to be kidding! It wasn't that important. ; 16:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC) ; 16:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Gheesling (talk • contribs)

"Filipina mother" vs "Filipino mother".

I substituted "Filipino mother" for "Filipina mother", but Fabrickator reverted my edit [Edit: Here's Fabricator's revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Koy&diff=prev&oldid=1194372531] , justifying it by saying either is okay in his or her edit summary. If I'm saying the former is better, and he or she is saying either is okay, why revert my edit?

A mother is presumably female, so what is gained by saying the latter instead of the normal English former?

This article is not officially a Philippines related article, nor is it written in Filipino English, and therefore the MoS does not say it should be Filipina, and therefore "Filipino mother" is better, IMHO, being standard English. English does not have the Spanish "a" vs "o" for gender in words. We don't say "Americana" for female and "Americano" for male. We say "American man" and "American woman".

[Edit: Jo Koy is an American who allegedly has some Filipino ancestry. The Jo Koy article therefore not a Philippines-related article, and this is reflected in the fact that the article has not officially been categorized as such. And the [guidelines about Philippines-related articles] says "Filipina is used when referring to women, both as an adjective and as an adjectival noun. Examples: a Filipina poet, The company is run by a Filipina. Filipino women is an expression that is mainly used outside the Philippines and should be avoided in Philippine-related articles; in Philippine English, standard usage is Filipinas, Filipina women or, more rarely, Philippine women. [bold font is mine]" N.B. There is nothing about avoiding it in other articles. If it was to be avoided generally, the MOS would say so, and this part of the MOS therefore carries the implication that "Filipino women" is preferred in non-Philippines-related articles.]

As I see it "Filipina", at best, is a slang word, or a foreign word used sometimes in English. Its use causes confusion, because if someone says "There were a total of ten Filipinos." the meaning is clear in standard, nongendered English. But if Filipinas exist, then the reader must wonder how many Filipinas there were in addition to those ten Filipinos.

By the way some Filipino women think "Filipina" is a derogatory term: https://josecarilloforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=265.0

[Edit: Inside the link above, you can see that "Filipina" has several meanings in addition to "female Filipino", which quite apart from being in some cases allegedly derogatory, make the use of the term "Filipina mother" in the article somewhat ambiguous and therefore less clear than "Filipino mother". The complete lack of any context (no information is given about the livelihood of this woman, nor is it clear who originally said that this woman was a "Filipina") makes this ambiguity a real problem. Also, according Wictionary, "Filipina mother" could mean "A Filipino mother who is a female Philippine-born person of pure or majority Spanish descent." https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Filipina#English. "Filipino mother" doesn't have this problem.]

Polar Apposite (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)