Talk:Korean Wave

Copy-editing needed - May 2012

I have added "copyedit" tag at the top of the article. The article being biased is one issue, and the other problem is that it reads like a direct translation from foreign media, in this case from South Korean newspapers. There are numerous issues that other Wikipedians have rightfully pointed out, and I must add that some of the paragraphs are not written in good English. Thus, major copy editing is needed and any contributions to improve the article will be greatly welcomed. Thanks, --- PBJT (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've done a slight revamp and added additional background info on the effects and spread. This article is becoming outdated and needs to be updated to reflect recent events since the Korean wave is no longer a new phenomenon. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not hiding your comment, M0rphzone. This discussion has been dormant for two weeks and IMO nothing significant was discussed under this title since this was to notify that a tag was added. Anyway, I'm sorry if I archived an open discussion by accident. --PBJT (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed unencyclopedic content

I've removed the following sections due to the tone and wording of the content and because it contains synthesized original research not stated in the given references. Please rewrite it in an encyclopedic style and remove any original research and synthesized content before adding these to the article. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Overview

The start of the Korean wave can be traced back to 1993 when the Korean television drama, Jealous was exported to China as the first popular cultural product from South Korea. Then in 1997, another Korean drama called What Is Love All About broadcast on CCTV of China. The noticeable popularity of this drama helped set the stage for the phenomenon in China. Then in 2002, Winter Sonata recorded an unprecedented and phenomenal hit in Japan, setting off a truly gigantic Korean wave in that country. In the following years, according to one source, “the Korean wave moved forward to diverse parts of Asia, including Southeast and Central Asia, and therefore this wave reached an active penetration stage".

In the mid 2000s, the rapid spread of the phenomenon slowed, giving weight to speculations that the Korean wave will be short lived; some even claimed that the wave was finally over.

However, in the late 2000s, a 'New Korean wave' emerged with the popularity of Korean pop songs and idol groups. The Korean wave, once thought as a bygone trend, is hotter than ever, with Korean singers gaining fame all across the globe, not just in Asia. A K-pop concert was successfully held in France in 2011; more are scheduled to be held in Europe and the United States.

The development of the Korean film industry

The Korean wave is indebted to the media liberalization that swept across Asia in the 1990s. The period from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s was an important turning point for the Korean media, with the introduction of liberalization in the sector. Under US pressure, in 1988 the Korean government allowed Hollywood studios to distribute films directly to local theatres and, by 1994, more than 10 Korean film importers had shut down their businesses. This opening of the market to Hollywood majors affected the vitality of the local film industry in general. Therefore Korean cinema, which was ignored by local audiences, was drawing its last breath. In addition, a rapid increase in foreign television programming as a result of television channel expansion was also a matter of concern.

In this context, two factors awakened Koreans to the importance of culture and its industrial development. In 1993, when the common view was that there was no hope for the revival of the local film industry, Sopyonje, a film shot in a beautiful rural landscape that portrayed a declining trational folkmusic genre, unexpectedly topped the box-office chart with more than a million admissions - the first Korean film ever to attract such a large audience. The film also received unprecedented invitations for screenings in art theatres, and on college campuses in Japan, the United States and some European countries. Sopyonje revived nostalgia for and public interest in 'our culture'.

Against this backdrop, the Korean government estalished the Cultural Industry Bureau within the Ministry of Culture and Sports in 1994, and instituted the Motion Picture Promotion Law in 1995 in order to lure corporate investment capital into the local film industry. In addition, in their effort to create a cultural industry, Koreans emulated and appropriated the America media system with the mantra 'Learning from Hollywood'. It was argued that Korea should promote large media companies as well as a more commercial media market. In this regard, sprawling family-owned, big business groups in Korea, or chaebol, such as Samsung, Hyundai and Daewoo, expanded into the media sector to include production, import, distribution and exhibition. In the process, the conventional Korean developmental regimen of an export-oriented economy continued. In the context of the public's rising interest in 'our culture' provoked by Sopyonje, and the improved film-viewing environment enabled by chaebol investment, including expanding film choices and more convenient theatre facilities, Korean cinema gradually gained local audiences.

The development of the Korean pop music industry

In general, the Korean pop music market was not vibrant before the 1990s. However, after Seoul's 1988 lifting of restrictions on foreign travel, the country became more exposed to the outside world. With the sharp rise in disposable income in the early 1990s, many Koreans purchased satellite dishes to pick up Japanese stations and Star TV. Against this bakdrop, Korean music fans came to have a better grasp of global music trends, and hungered for new tunes from local musicians.

In this context, the three-man band Seo Taiji and Boys innovated the Korean music industry with hybridization of music. Each of their albums was in itself a musical experimentation. Since Seo Taiji, the syncretism of a wide range of musical genres in one album has become commonplace in Korea. What has come into existence is a hybrid but distinctively Korean pop style. Seo Taiji and Boys not only expanded the scope of K-pop but also the scale of the music market. With an endless crop of imitaition groups of Seo Taiji and Boys, sales of home-grown pop acts have outpaced foreign albums by four to one since 1982, the Recording Industry Association of Korea reports. As of 2002, Korea is the second largest music market in Asia with $300 million album sales per year.

Hallyu vs Hanryu

Hallyu wave seems to be the more common usage, 929,000 hits versus Hanryu wave 2,730 hits. Please discuss why it should be changed. Evaders99 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it back to Hallyu, since it seems Wajalama isn't replying. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish to suggest both pronunciation be included in the page. The correct RR of 한류 "should" be Hanryu . However, even Koreans seems to embrace "Hallyu", which I do not understand why. Lhong1987 (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No mention of the Gangnam phenomenon: fail

This article needs to mention the Gangnam style phenomenon (reliable source). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been added, but it's really something that's recent and has become somewhat overrated, although it did catapult the phenomenon to new heights by letting a wider audience find out/know about the Korean wave phenomenon. Gangnam style does not represent the Korean wave as the English/American media presents it to be, since Psy is not even really a well-known/famous/followed singer as the other girl/boy kpop groups (at least before the event). - M0rphzone (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

And to add to this: the only reason why he got so popular all of a sudden is because Americans and people from other countries view him as a comedian of a sort in addition to his funny appearance. His music video is comedy, rather than an actual kpop song. That's how he got so popular (and perhaps overrated like Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, etc.) - M0rphzone (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No mention of StarCraft (2)

Even though starcraft was released globally and is not specific korean, it has always been extremely popular in south-korea. They have the best pro gamers world wide. A lot of people watch GSL (www.gomtv.net), of which nearly all players are korean. So their export is the tournament, the players and they give inspiration for the western world to set up similar events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.92.186 (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Samsung bullying Apple?

This sounds backwards to me. But in any case this statement needs further explanation (what actions Samsung took that would constitute bullying) and citation. Othewise it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.47 (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed, good catch Evaders99 (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

80% of Kpop revenue from Japanese market

Under the Japan section, it might be worth noting that 80% of Kpop revenue derives from the Japanese market. If one considers that Japanese segment of a combined South Korea/Japan market is only 70%, it would indicate that Kpop is even more popular in Japan than it is in Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.47 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you can add it in as long as you have a reliable source to cite it. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus requested

I've done some major editing to the article, not sure if my edits have been desirable but if they are, Im thinking of re-writing everything below the economical effects section. I guess I would need the consensus to do so, because I will have to rewrite (and possibly remove) entire sections and paragraphs. -A1candidate (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A rewrite would be greatly appreciated. The sections below the Economics section seem as if they were written by fanboys/fangirls, which many of the IPs (and possibly editors with accounts) who edit this article seem to be. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

International reactions section

Is there an need to include "international reactions"? I've noticed an epidemic of trivial "reactions" sections popping up in every news-related article lately, and I don't think it needs to spread to this article as well. If the section is supposed to list international reactions, there'll need to be reactions from other states besides the US, UK, and the UN. I say just remove it as it is inherently unhelpful and really serves no useful input other than the heads of states' opinion on the issue. They don't represent the population's reactions, which is what's important, since the statements made by heads of states to events like this are predictable and press release fodder for news media to report on. If it's to be a section that includes international reactions, then it will need to include many more reactions from other countries, but that brings up the issue of undue weight and the issues of being trivial. This extends to all those news/incident articles that include these "reactions". - M0rphzone (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've removed it due to the underlying issues of having such "reactions" sections. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Im not sure how much you know about the Korean wave, but its actually used by the S. Korean government as a soft power tool to exert its cultural influences on other countries. (This is even officially acknowledged by the S.K. government, albeit in a more tactful, diplomatic tone). No matter how you view it, the international reactions to the Korean wave do affect the Foreign relations of South Korea. When President Obama visits S. Korea and reveals the official US viewpoint of the Korean Wave, this could be included in the Republic of Korea–United States relations article instead, but Im pretty sure it would be of interest to everyone reading this article. I would consider rewriting it in prose instead of just listing every single statement though. -A1candidate (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but I recommend writing it in prose. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

Lets discuss some of the recent changes here-A1candidate (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Great work on streamlining the article A1candidate. Is there a specific problem you wanted to discuss? Stateofyolandia (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, its got to do with the heading I chose for the time period from 2000 to 2009 and also, what most South Koreans think of the Hallyu-wave (under "Historical background"). Im wondering if there's a way to rephrase this: Today, many South Koreans consider the spread of the Hallyu-wave to be the first time that Korea is able to make its mark on the world after being a vassal state of China's Ming and Qing dynasties, a colony of the Empire of Japan in the first half of the 20th century, and, according to some South Koreans, a part of America's Backyard since the end of Japanese rule. -A1candidate (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Strive is fine. I subscribe more to the school of "what would an encyclopedia say about the subject?" and it seems too editorial-like to generalize the whole dynamic of the underdog story. I'd say leave that to newspapers. Cheers. Stateofyolandia (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the quotation by Kim Gu down to the end of the paragraph just before the "History of the Hallyu-wave" begins, I think the quote shows the historical background for the spread of the wave much better this way, what do you think? -A1candidate (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Global vs Internet?

From what I've read, Hallyu, especially Kpop is more popular on the internet than in a physical place somewhere in the globe. While it's true it has some popularity in Europe or US with some people, most people don't know what Kpop is/have never heard of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.4.206 (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent page move

Erm, User talk:Intershark just moved the page from "Korean wave" to "Koreanophile". I'll just say that this is the first time seeing this new term. Why dont we move this back and create a new page for "Koreanophile" instead? -A1candidate (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just moved it back. It needed to be done fast, until someone else moved the page somewhere else or a bot modified the redirect. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, "Koreanophile" is not even a word. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats true, I dont remember ever seeing that word in reliable, established sources. But Im wondering if moving this to "Korean Wave" would be a good idea? -A1candidate (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be correct to move the page to "Korean Wave", since "Korean Wave" is a proper name and not a type of waves. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation and contrast with European colonialism

This comparison to European colonialism seems to be unfounded WP:OR.

• James Russell, Mark. "The Gangnam Phenom". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 5 March 2013. More generally, it illustrates the new reality that the North-South pattern of trade and cultural exchange that has dominated the world since the ascendance of European colonialism is giving way and making room for unexpected soft power. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) This is the only source that mentions European colonialism in passing. This article is all about Korean soft power and nowhere does it support a comparison to European colonialism.
• "Asia rides wave of Korean pop culture invasion". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 30 April 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Again this source does mention "cultural invasion" - but no where does it tie to European colonialism.

Other mentions of soft power, cultural exchange, and Psy's 'Gangnam Style' are mentioned in other parts of the article. This section fails to provide support for this comparison. I think it needs to be pruned or deleted entirely. The entire article is about the Korean wave, which there is already adequate support for Korean soft power here. Evaders99 (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles comparing the Korean wave with imperialism, I dont have time to cite all of them but I'll just quote from one "Dozens of research have been done regarding the 'Korean Wave' such as 'Cultural Imperialism' that have been done criticising global cultural assimilated phenomenon by Western cultural rule" ([www.cct.go.kr/data/acf2006/aycc/aycc_0601_Soo-Jung Kim.pdf Asia Culture Forum 2006]). But I agree that colonialism is a misleading term, I've changed it to "imperialism" instead -A1candidate (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not well informed on the research here. I could see there is probably an argument for Cultural imperialism, but Imperialism in the common usage seems a stretch. It seems like a false analogy or a logical fallacy here, but if there are sources found that support this, then I'll have no complaints. Thanks A1candidate for all your work. Evaders99 (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats all true to a large extent. However, I do think its fair to make a comparison between soft power and hard power. We cant just talk about the former and ignore the latter. I agree with you the section needs more relevant sources. For now, I've hidden a large chunk of it, will come back to it when I have more time ,thanks for the feedback -A1candidate (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Some sort of analogy might be legitimate and founded, but the table, which seems to be of "original research", is completely, pardon me, ridiculous. 85.64.187.196 (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)