Talk:K-pop/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Albums

There is need in an update for the expressions. The term mini album is explained but Kpop also uses single album and extended play besides a (regular) album. Comparing those to the definitions on Wikipedia is as confusing as comparing those album types is. They don't even seem to be used in a regular manner (number of tracks, length of playtime etc. being the normal points to distinguish all formats).

  1. single album
  2. mini album
  3. extended play
  4. album

--46.115.124.79 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That would need reliable sources. It is dificult to fin reliable websites that fully explain the difference in K-pop terms. And please, next time open the discussion at the bottom of the page, as you can see there is a chronological order of topics, newest discussions go at the bottom. Otherwise people who do not have this article on their watchlist will not find your suggestions. Thank you. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 19:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

First opinion

Let's see what the Korean-language Korean singers category has. Why? Because I'm bored, and it will help interwiki ducksheep goodness.

No idea if all of these are actually kpop. I haven't heard of most of them, and I have a decent collection of kpop (much of it, but not all. from Pump It Up).--SPUI (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Another one, found via Chinese Wikipedia:

--SPUI (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Does someone know if the "T" listed is a singer or a group... Would help disambiguating the link. Monni 20:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know that Cho Yong Pil was extremely famous in the 80s. He has been given a nickname of Korea's king of singers (translation of 대한민국의 최고의 가왕), and he also came up on shows like 위대한탄생 (13.6% 시청률! That's a lot, seriously. Although I don't know the terminology, online translators get this wrong) as a judge. Also, Jo Sung Mo was also popular in the 90s and his music was mostly ballads. He was as famous as Seo Taiji (서태지와 아이들, a pop/rock/electronic group), who is already mentioned in this article. H.O.T was also an extremely famous pop group, and so was Fin.K.L. I'll try find information about these guys, since they are like revolutionaries in K-Pop, if I can. 78.180.101.97 (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm thinking that the intro for the article needs a total rewrite. I mean, most of it is simply talking about the achievements certain artists have made. That's important, of course, but do we need to know in detail what each popular artist did? I'm thinking of taking out the sections on BoA, Se7en, and Bi; they can simply be linked to. Anyone else agree? SKS2K6 08:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. -- Visviva 05:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lee Jung Hyun

"Popular artists who diverge from the traditional K-pop sound include Lee Jung Hyun, a female techno artist often compared to America's Moby;"

I would remove this comparison about LJH to Moby, and replace it with Bjork (from I think Iceland). LJH has stated that she likens herself to Bjork.68.102.37.191 12:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

She doesn't sound anything like Bjork. Kappa 13:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Or Moby for that matter. Kappa 13:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
If I say I can fly, do I get a wikipedia page saying I can fly? Just asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.215.44 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

I put it here because it affects a lot of the pages, but do we need a section for every single variety show a star has appeared on? That would be like the English Wikipedia putting on every single talk show that, say, Mariah Carey's been in. I personally find it trivial, unless that person (or group) is a mainstay, or was part of the reason why that show became famous (Chae Yeon on X-Man, for example). But I'm just wondering if I'm of the minority here.... (Maybe we should have a Wikiproject:K-pop :P) SKS2K6 21:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Since someone decided to finally delete the specific info, I just rewrote it. I'm not sure about the external links, though; they tend to violate certain rules of WP:EL. SKS2K6 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

External links

Can someone suspend these users [1][2] from posting that AllKpop link? It's just a gossip website that provides skewed articles. They have tried to added it several times already.75.16.138.40 (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though the external links are causing quite a lot of problems and dissent. Although I personally believe that some blog links are okay, and some are not, at this point, none should be used simply because there's so much drama over one simple link. Please talk about potential links here before adding them. Thanks. SKS2K6 (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone Keeps Adding Back the Blog Links, if one is added all should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.152.77 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Someone Keeps Adding Krnloop, Soompi, and Kome Blog links. No Blogs are allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.152.77 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you just need to face facts that the only thing that the people writing this article are capable of reading are blog links. Real literature such as 'Dickens' or a reputable source is unknown to their likes. Any attempt to get any kind of objective truth is just going to be lost under a froth of conjecture and opinion from a barrage of blog sites comparing them to any number of things from the 'grand deity' down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.215.44 (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Shouldn't there be a section that shows some citicism as well?Idoversuperego (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Find sources and add them. Personally, I can't find anything other than crazy netizens, so.... SKS2K6 (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I heard that 서태지 said that today's singers are not singers because they can't sing...or something like that...if I find an article on that, I'll try to post it....Idoversuperego (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
There is the Taiwanese singer who left K-pop because of similar allegations to Jang Ja-yeon, if I recall. She basically discussed the dark side of k-pop. Probably the best place to start, or with the plastic surgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.215.44 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

We need pictures! I recommened BoA from her "I'll Eat You up" single cover for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.217.99 (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Training

I'm curious as to how the training process works for Kpop stars. From my understanding, after a successful audition or discovery by a comany, the person becomes a "trainee" for a certain number of years, receiving lessons on singing, dancing, etc. until an official "debut" with a group..could someone write a section on that? -- Bubbachuck (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's possible.... But a) it'll require translators, and b) it'll be a lot of work, because each group has their own policy. I believe JYP, for example, trains their future singers for years, and also goes beyond the normal singing/dancing route to teach things like sex ed. SM is pretty similar as well, but they're not as thorough, and in some cases, as long (Key from SHINee only trained for a year). It would be hard to do a blanket summary because each company is slightly different.... SKS2K6 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, here's hoping some translators will show up :). IMO it seems like it would be invaluable to an English article on K-pop because it seems so different from the way West pop acts are made (to my untrained eyes anyway), which seems to rely on less training and more scouting. Curious, is sex ed not taught to children in Korea typically then? -- Bubbachuck (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

notice

71.190.246.97 will be vandalism in this article by Removed infobox

Top 10 KPOP June 2009 From Youtube

k-pop in sometimes combines such as

Again n Again by 2PM Rhythm sound with 2-step,

Gee by SNSD Rhythm sound with Bubblegum pop

Bad Boy by Son DamBi Rhythm sound with Dance-pop

Memories and Remembrance by Kim Tae-Woo ft. GOD members Rhythm sound with House music


External videos
video icon Top 10 KPOP June 2009, from YouTube,

Top Seller

Groups such as TVXQ, Super Junior, SS501 , SHINee, SNSD, KARA and Big Bang continue to be top sellers in K-pop, I know that Big Bang, TVXQ, and SNSD are one of the top seller, but I dunno about the others. If no one objects, I'm going to delete it because although they had a song that might have reach the top spot, I don't think it can qualify for being a "Top Seller". 75.72.105.60 (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I just deleted it, although I have to say that I'm sure Suju is one of the top artist too. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI: new chart for Korea: K-Pop Hot 100

Billboard K-Pop Hot 100 Launches; Sistar Is No. 1 on New Korea Chart - eo (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Popularity in other countires

By 2011, K-Pop had become popular in Japan, Malaysia, Poland, Mexico, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore, France, Ireland, China, Canada, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Argentina, Russia, Spain, Germany, Romania, Croatia, Australia, Vietnam, the United Kingdom and the United States (including Puerto Rico) The source only mentions Asia? I for sure know that K-pop isn't even that well known in the states. Chikazuku (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think that Koreans tend to exaggerate the popularity of their music in other countries. There needs to be a stronger source for this, like sales charts or articles outlining their popularity in other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjbrooks (talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm from Malaysia and have traveled a lot. Saying that Kpop is mainstream throughout Asia is a bit of a stretch so I changed it to East Asia as there are no sources telling us that Kpop has become mainstream elsewhere (other than the biased articles written by K-media). There are many people in the Indian subcontinent, Middle Eastern Countries, and countries like Uzbekistan who haven't even heard of Kpop. It's maintream in East and South East Asian countries like: Korea (both :O) Japan (expanding niche other than big three: Boa, TVXQ, Kara/SNSD) Taiwan, China, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Phillipines, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc. Heck, its still an expanding niche in Australia. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.140.59.58 (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This article definitely propagates the myth that anybody outside of Korea knows or cares about K-pop. The citation for K-pop being popular in the US (reference no. 22) links to a Facebook page subtitled "2 Americans' love of K-pop." This is not an appropriate source for the claim that K-pop is "steadily gaining influence in foreign markets outside of Asia...notably in the United States..." I am an American who currently lives in Korea, and I never heard a single K-pop song until I moved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.99.164.81 (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My college geography textbook says that K-pop is popular outside Korea, but mostly in East Asia/China. Thanks for catching that Facebook source, I put up an unreliable sources template.--¿3family6 contribs 12:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed that source and changed the first sentence of the section. I don't see any reason to just flag a Facebook page as an unreliable source, it needed to just be removed. Besides, the other source (starobserver) mentions both the US and Canada, so it covers both of them. However, although that article does mention Australia, it does so in jest ("If the genre’s popularity keeps growing at this rate, it’s only a matter of time until the K-Pop wave reaches Australia.") Accordingly, I removed the Facebook page as a source and changed "most notably in the United States, Canada and Australia" to "including North America." I don't think anyone can say with certainty that K-Pop's popularity is growing more "notably" in those countries than anywhere else. The blog article cited does give a valid reason to believe popularity is increasing in the US and Canada, though, so I don't have a problem with those countries being mentioned in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.10.31.234 (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In the article at this moment about the popularity of k-pop in Turkey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-pop#Africa.2C_India.2C_and_the_Middle_East "rather than simply accepting what is spoon-fed to them. . . " If Turkey is embracing k-pop its somehow important as a rejection of "spoon fed culture." Even if this has a reference, its a shallow and spurious bit of analysis, imo not encyclopedic in the least.174.71.91.70 (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

K-pop in New York

Here is a picture (SM Town Live World Tour in NY) on Commons. Jae ₩on (Deposit) 14:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

60s, 70s and 80s

The 60s, 70s and the 80s section is too empty, don't you guys think? Those time periods have been one of the most musical stages of Korea, having Jo Yong Pil and Kim Gun-mo. They were extremely famous! There were crowds as much as to fill a whole stadium when they went anywhere. Although people think that they are not related to K-Pop, they stirred up the entire nation. Kim Gun-mo, I learnt that he holds the place on the Guinness Book of World Records for the highest selling album in South Korea, with his third album, Kim Gun Mo 3, although I am not very sure of this. It has sold 3.3 million copies in its release year. But they are not the only ones. There are tons of more singers that have been important in setting up the foundation of K-Pop, like the group Boowhal and 들국화, who have been rock groups that inspired other bands into stepping up into the music industries in the 80s. Rock is "introduced" (I'm saying introduced, because I can't find a good word for this, and many before the 80s were more into other genres). And the 90s, it should probably mention about how many idol groups started forming around that time period. There are many pop groups that were very famous, and by famous I mean very. For example, there is H.O.T and Fin.K.L. I'll try find relevant sites to cite my information, but although I'm not sure about the Guinness Book of World Records thing, I know that most of the information is true, and also, there should be something to fill in the gaps, cause they look pitiful.Cqmoon (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Trot

I feel like the information about Trot should be removed from this article because it doesn't really have anything to do with K-pop, they're both different genres. Trot already has its own article and the information would be better there. --Chikazuku (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Trot and Kpop does have some link. Super Junior T is a Kpop trot group for instance. There are groups in Korea that does trot in performances, e.g Big Bang and Girls' Generation. Korean pop music in the 80s and 90s were mainly trot, so removal wouldn't be appropriate as this would limit Kpop's time period. SystemK (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

There seems to be some non-neutral POV going on in this section. I thought the current information in the section seemed irrelevant and not worth mentioning, almost as if someone had edited it to try to soften something more controversial. Sure enough, looking back through the history, that's exactly what happened. Someone is apparently trying to defend this boy band for whatever they supposedly did that was such an outrage. Frankly, I don't see why the section needs to exist at all. It basically consists of a couple of anecdotes involving K-pop groups. It ties into the Korean myth that K-pop is well-known worldwide: Koreans tend to think that when a K-pop star says something controversial, it becomes a global scandal. In reality, Koreans are really the only ones who notice. To suggest that people in countries other than Korea (and perhaps Japan, China and Taiwan) "criticize" K-pop is wrong, because relatively few people even know what K-pop is, and even fewer pay enough attention to it to notice when a boy band makes a controversial comment. At any rate, the stuff in this section right now is not worth mentioning, whatever you think about the popularity of K-pop. I am removing the section; if someone wants to add some criticism of K-pop that is worth mentioning (and source it), then you can bring back the heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.10.31.234 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about removing the entire section. Your reasons may be valid about the non-Korean views about the scandals but Wikipedia is supposed to be a fountain of world knowledge. So, keep the section in since, as of 17 December 2013, the section is sourced. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree there's WP:POV of WP:POV but that's part of the sorry!
  1. Due to cultural dichotomies vis the k-pop industry, controversy is unusually prevalent.
  2. Due to K-pop's personality cult tendencies, scandal is unusually prevalent.
  3. Due to K-pop's especially media incestuousness nature, controversy is unusually explosive.
  4. Due to K-pop's the wider economy (cross-selling, advertising, sponsorship, endorsement, merchandising, etc.), controversy is unusually explosive.
  5. Due to K-pop's especially manufactured / neo-bonded labour production, scandal is unusually prevalent.
  6. I guess, this page gets one of the highest proportions of fanboy/fangirl/sockpuppet/sycophant/etc. content.
  7. Much of the controversy / scandal is artifice (stunts, teasers, etc.), in all the above. Which itself is an important part of the story.
Controversy and scandal are part of the crux of K-pop! It's a hard thing to wikify – which in my book means work smarter and/or harder. Several other reactions are available, I tend to resist those for whom it means don't bother wikifying it, it's 'too' hard. Meanwhile, obviously, there remains a thing called biting off more than one can chew (I'm an idealist, continuous improvement fan – not a perfectionist).
An example of a similar structure as it might be with an article separation (of controversy, scandal, etc.) is goth rock ⇔ goth subculture which works adequately, though it's fall less a hot subject.
While I'm against eliminating controversy / scandal / trash-happening from the main article, or anything close.
We might mitigate the much of 7 and eliminate much of 6, by hiving off specialised controversy / scandal / trash-happening articles and only take content up from those pages, into a summary here, when the intake-snippet/segment's reached near good article quality. (Trying for a work-smart, rather the a work-hard solution.)
Now then ... Where's that baby I was bathing? I had some bath water, and I had a baby ... now the bath water's gone – but that's fine ... hmm ... HERE BABY! WHERE ARE YOU BABY?   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Minor History Edit

The background section incorrectly states that the country was divided into North and South Korea after the Korean War. Actually, the country was so divided after WW2 and the liberation of Korea from Japanese control. I have edited the section to correct the error. 204.44.0.4 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The writing quality of this article is just awful...

It reads like it was translated by someone who suffered severe brain trama immediately prior to writing this page. I don't claim to know anything concerning the subject, after all that's why I came to the page in the first place, but the first half of the page seems completely unnecessary and doesn't make any sense. Not only that but I believe the supposed popularity of this genre from a global perspective is being very dramatically overstated, especially in relation to Western countries.

In the first section under the "history" heading there are two entire paragraphs that have no citations despite the fact they specifically accuse someone of plagiarism. Call me crazy but I do believe that's one of those things that should be sourced. (Although I suppose that is irrelevant considering that section is the one that appears completely unnecessary.) It would make sense to briefly touch on the musical styles that helped shape K-Pop, but that section is the longest section on the entire page. (--NBMATT (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC))

I'll go look it over.--¿3family6 contribs 12:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

File:K-pop in Japan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:K-pop in Japan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:K-pop in Japan.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Refereces

I am questioning a great number of sources in this article which I have listed below:

News.naver.com, korea.net, news.sportsseoul.com, time.com, 100.naver.com, dkpopnews.net, japantimes.co.jp, http://asiapacificarts.usc.edu (don't be tricked this is not a good source in the least), starobserver.com.au, guardian.co.uk, nocutnews.co.kr, pressian.com, which are currently these numbers:

1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13 ,14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 38, 39

either because (a) the source in general is unreliable, such as one paragraph news articles making exaggerated conjectures or entirely subjective articles (b) the link to the source does not work (c) the information being used as a reference does not match the source provided or (d) the information provided from the reference does not add valuable information to the article.

We should try to avoid 'news' websites for information because they can be incredibly biased and do not necessarily have accountability to provide accurate information. Direct sources are prefered in general.

I'm also not sure what makes encykorea reference reliable, mainly because the links aren't to specific articles and they are written in korean.

Some citations for example use a news article stating a song was in the Billboard top 100, which references another news article. Is this reliable? why not reference a Billboard volume from Google Books? Is this worth mentioning in the article if it can't be sourced by anything else? Reference 28 also links to a news article about Bigbang's MTV award when this information is available via MTV

Another thing, I do not think it is appropriate to provide so many specifics about particular artists on this page. Information about awards and song sales is on individual artist pages and should be used here sparingly if necessary to make a point about Kpop in general.

Does anyone else agree with my perspective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreboniusArtorius (talk • contribs) 06:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


In addition to that, everyone please STOP posting up about your favorite artists.. & someone summarize the whole "outside of asia" section too please.. as "TreboniusArtorius" has said, it has too many unnecessary details... Junilein (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I only casually watch this page, but I know some of the sources are unreliable. If it is a legitimate news agency, as many of the above are, than they are reliable. But I agree that it is better to cite Billboard charts directly. Billboard.com or Allmusic.com are the best sources for this.--¿3family6 contribs 14:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why "news" sources are unacceptable, as they clearly are under WP:RS. Naver News, Time, and The Guardian are all perfectly acceptable. Actually, to be honest, the only unacceptable link that I see in your list is dkpopnews.net. http://asiapacificarts.usc.edu is debatable, although I think it fails WP:RS. I think when you say "news" you mean blog-style pages, no? Sites such as Soompi and Allkpop are unacceptable as they are first and foremost blogs. Allkpop even has a disclaimer saying that they basically can't be taken as fact. SKS (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say they unacceptable, it depends on the way in which they are used. Most of them aren't about source but content. Naver News looks fine (i can't read it anyway lol) but it was used to cite music chart sources which could be more direct. It was also used in a sentence about Spanish speaking countries which has a [citation needed] on the end. I think most of them are okay according to the rules but not necessarily the best for the article. I think the etymology section should also include an actual etymology btw. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Allkpop and Soompi translates news articles from Naver and other Korean newspapers and magazines. What is unacceptable in that? If it is a news piece they created themselves from fan emails, like "XY was spotted dining in ZZ restaurant", it's anyways yellow press, and impossible to use, but I see nothing wrong with their articles that are translations from Korean newspapers. They always cite the source article. These two sites are the two biggest English language news sources for Kpop, and both have the support of local Kpop agencies (they also conduct interviews and special reports with artists). 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 12:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

And SKS, The Daily Mail has a similar disclaimer. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 13:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


Feedback needed + small observation

Hi everyone, I've made some massive additions to this page and I hope I didnt write anything dreadfully wrong, this is only my second time editing wikipedia so please forgive me for not formatting the references properly I'll tidy it up when i have more time.

Also, I notice that among those interested in K-Pop, a lot of them are females and statistics have shown that people who actively edit Wikipedia tend to be male. And I think that might be a possible reason why this page has such a comparatively low edit activity even though its a relativly important topic. Of course there are excepttions but I doubt many of those female K-pop fans out there would seriously find editing wikipedia more interesting than following their K-Pop stars, and hence - low edit activity. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1candidate (talk • contribs) 23:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

oh and by the way...there's someone out there trying to vandalize and delete entire sections, im not sure if this page should get protection someday?

  • Your contribution is very positive. Maybe if this article was better, someone would want to rewrite the section "Excessive behaviours, anti-fans and sasaeng fans" so that it had a flow and conveyed some integral idea instead of being just a compilation of facts. (But I must say that I'm not a major contributor to this article. I only added one small paragraph that has been destroyed already. So I don't really have much idea what an article about k-pop should look like.) Also, I'm not sure "Gangnam Style" is important enough to have a complete section dedicated to it. (Actually at the moment it is cause it's viral this very moment.) But I like everything your wrote and in my opinion the whole article is not good enough to start correcting your additions. They are great, they made the page much better.

    Also, about you article K-Pop idol... At the present state it doesn't really say anything about Korean idols. Like, I think it's logical that if you write "Psy is a K-pop idol", linking the article "K-pop idol" like that, the target article should say who K-pop idols are instead of telling stories about them being chased by fans. I don't really think Korean idols have any unique characteristics like Japanese idols do. I personally thought that "idols" in Korea were simply [young] artists very popular among young people, and that's all. So if you don't find something special to say about Korean idols, your article should probably be renamed to something else, should become an article about K-pop fandom or whatever. (I don't have any idea.)

    I personally think girls write better. Sure, there aren't enough girls in Wikipedia as a whole, but there are plenty at boyband articles. When I compared last time, boyband articles were much better written than girlgroup ones. My guess that there aren't many girls here cause editing Wikipedia requires some technical skills; if writing here were as easy as posting on forums, girls would come. Also, Wikipedia is not cute, if not simply ugly. Also, there's a large amount of guys who don't have a life and don't have anything to do and are too sociopatic to hang on Facebook, while girls have more happier things to do than edit Wikipedia. These are my guesses. ^^;

    I don't know about protecting the article now, it's not vandalized very often yet.

    And the last "clever" thought... You need to sign your posts with 4 tildes. You should type 4 tildes (like this: ~~~~) at the end of your posts at talk pages. They would be automatically substituted with your user name and the current time. (The four tildes I've just typed won't be substituted cause I added a special tag to tell Wikipedia to leave them alone. But when I finish the post, I'll type another four tildes and they will work.) That's all I wanted to say. ^^; --Moscowconnection (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  • well people are deleting almost everything I wrote except the particular section that you're pointing out, they also removed "Gangnam Style"...even if "Gangnam Style" does not deserve its own section, I still think it should be mentioned at least once because no other Kpop song has even come close to achieving what it has done. But who cares Im done editing wikipedia now, its not worth my time and there are much more important things in life :)

anyway thank you for your feedback

A1candidate (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Those weren't "people" who removed it. Since they registered specially to remove your additions, one can assume that it is the same user who vandalized the article before. Don't go. It's true that there are more important things in life, though. :) And the tags placed by Chikazuku are also correct cause it is an encyclopedic article, it needs general sentences. The sections about K-pop in different countries are okay cause they can be viewed as the history of the globalization of K-pop, but the section "K-Pop according to the international media" also has too many examples. You should simply write some general sentences and illustrate them with the examples you already added. The section should be more analytical. Now it looks like a collection of random facts. (But the facts aren't random, you collected a lot of info about how K-pop is popular everywhere and noticed by the media, your examples are great, I didn't know there were so many English-language news articles about K-pop. You can surely find some general sentences in the news articles too.) Yes, before you came the page was more general, but it was neither reliable, nor readable. --Moscowconnection (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Issues

This article focuses way too much on K-pop's international popularity and not enough on its history. It's nice to know that K-pop is known all over the world, but it shouldn't take up over half of the article. The "Fan obsession" section isn't necessary either, as it's already covered in the K-pop idol article and doesn't pertain to the genre itself. Chikazuku (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think most people who are new to K-Pop are more interested in its international popularity than its history, but if a lot of people disagree with me, feel free to add more to K-Pop's history,same applies to fan obsession section A1candidate (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way I agree that there's still a lot to improve on this article, and K-Pop's popularity certainly shouldnt take up half the article. But instead of deleting it, I think we should add to it because there are so many important sections that are barely mentioned at all (For example : K-Pop's characteristics, impact, history, etc)
There are a some spelling mistakes, many links are placed wrongly, a lot of things need to be improved
But this article has a low edit activity so I guess it'll take a long time for it to be finished?
A1candidate (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I fully support A1candidate. The article is expanding and it's not right to try and stop A1candidate. The article was terrible before A1candidate came. Did anyone ever try to read it? A third of the history section is an original research and a half is unsourced sentences like «In 2003, TVXQ which are a very successful group in KPOP world being given the name "KPOP Legends" or the "Gods of KPOP", where their most successful album was Mirotic in 2008 that was a hit.» :-) --Moscowconnection (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I never said that I wanted A1candidate to stop expanding the article. Don't put words in my mouth. I appreciate the work that they're doing (the article's very informative now), but it can be too detailed in places (like the fact that the Wonder Girls were on Wendy Williams or Rain being enlisted in the army, that belongs in their respective articles). A majority of the article can be summed up in sentences such as "The Wonder Girls and 2NE1 have went on headlining American tours" that don't go into too much detail. And I agree that the history section needs work, I wasn't defending it. Chikazuku (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually for the section on popularity in the United States, I did try to shorten it as much as possible, the only information that I include is :
1) Name of artist and bands performing
2) Name of event
3) Location and date
I think all this information is necessary to give the reader a good idea of what's going on, especially the date and location of the event. For some other sections I included just a little details to make it more interesting, its not too much and most details are again confined to Names, Location, Dates, and just 1 or 2 clues that indicate the band's popularity in the country/region.
Also, "Wonder Girls on Wendy Williams" was not written by me, it was already in this article before I came, but I hate to delete things written by other people unless its clearly unsourced. "Rain being enlisted in the army" is necessary for the reader to understand why he has stopped all musical activities in the United States (and elsewhere)
Thanks everyone for your feedback, but I think article would be much better if there were more regular contributors to give an all-rounded view, the "Characteristics" and "Impact" sections needs to be expanded urgently. A1candidate (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with your first point Chikazuku. There is too much information stuffed into this article that is unnecessary especially about the international aspects. The pictures of Obama and Erick Schmidt do not belong here at all. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

More Issues

The paragraph currently in the etymology section belongs in the 'background' section. Etymology should describe origins of the actual word. In this case I feel the section is unnecessary because the word is explanable in less than a sentence as an abbreviation of Korean Pop, and this is hardly the article to include the etymology of the words 'Korean' or 'popular'. Any opposition? I will change it soon if none. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, the 'Famous Kpop groups and their respective fans and club colors' is very strange to me. I was going to move it to the 'Fan Obsession' section but the accompanying text implies it is just a list of artists. So it would be helpful if Elfbluesapphiresuju would give some input for adding the fan information to this particular table? TreboniusArtorius (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, etymologies belong to Wiktionary. IMHO, in Wikipedia, we only need to explain abbreviations etc. briefly in the lead section of relevant article. Monni (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Good I agree. Although etymologies are very useful for some words, such as on the dragon page. I will go ahead and remove the section now. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
dragon page isn't the best possible to compare with as it defines the word in both lead and "Name" section, the latter kinda redundant. Monni (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
LOL well yes good point but I just meant the word is a good example of when an etymology is useful. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a rationale for having these fan club names and their colors? The names I can see maybe being appropriate, although they don't add anything of value to the article. The colors belong on individual artist/club pages. I will change this also if no objections. It seems Elfbluesapphiresuju likes to make major edits without discussion. I will also move the rest of the table to a more appropriate section. Right now it is not placed well.

I propose that 'Globalization of K-pop' and 'Popularity outside South Korea' be merged and some repeated information removed. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Repeating information inside article should always be avoided as much as possible. Monni (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverting page Heads Up (Vandalism)

Wow!, User:Dcss453 extremely vandalized this page and has been doing so for days (see total destructive reverts: [3]), I think it is best to revert now back to JOHNRICHES96 because it was much better and there are not any recent changes except in an attempt to refix everything the User:Dcss453 added to get it back to a better page. If User:Dcss453 continues I will talk to admin because they are clearly edit warring. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply

By what I've seen in "View History" the User:Dcss453 not vandalism wikipedia she only put what other username put before but then other username remove. I've been thinking that one username is been remove all things that others put. User:Dcss453 is contribute for wikipedia not vandalism, she addicted info about others kpop groups that wikipedia didn't had because this weikipedia is very "bias" only talk about one or two kpop groups and if talk about one or two kpop groups have to mention others that contribute for kpop sucess. I want know who is been remove all things from wikipedia in this days, is this that is vandalism, one username can't remove all things without discussion. This wikipedia have to be "neutral" not "bias". heartpink123, 13:48 20 Steptember 2012

The reason I call User:Dcss453's edits vandalism is because they essentially reverted the entire page to how it was a few weeks ago and undid things that were huge improvements, while adding back things that were written poorly and much of it badly sourced or biased. They did this without discussion, and others have done this before, so if it is for some personal agenda I wouldn't know but I certainly know that the changed were destructive to the article's quality, and I can give plenty of examples if you look at the diff page I linked to. The pictures of Obama and Erick Schmidt for instance were completely unrelated to the focus of this page. Also they tried to add back the 'etymology' section while clearly not knowing what a proper 'etymology' is. They removed the 'intricate detail' header that is still a problem being worked on. They should also have discussed or written comments about their major changes if they are serious about them. Maybe it wasn't 'vandalism' per se, but I can't make anything positive of it. All changes made before User:Dcss453 reverted them were agreed upon so I don't think I would consider their revert a 'contribution'.
I am personally not that big a fan of K-Pop, so I wouldn't know who or what should be mentioned. You can add in details about artists as necessary but we already have a lot of unneccesary information and in the end not all groups will even receive mention. Mentioning particular artists should have a purpose and flow with the content rather than being there for the sake of it. The Reggae page is a good example, it is focused on the genre itself with sporadic artist references where they important or helpful to know. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Exist one username that remove all things that some usernames put. This username remove all things without discussion. About "Top 20 Kpop Youtube views" I don't know if is the same username but he/she put fake views, like 2NE1 "I'm The Best" have 53(million) but she/he put 54(million), Psy Feat Hyuna appear about 3 times in the top and remove SNSD "The Boys", this is put fake info that will mistake many persons who came here search and this wiki is about Kpop not only about one or two groups of kpop beacuse I can see that wikipedia is very bias. Who contribute to wikipedia have to be neutral not bias. heartpink123 13:33 29 September 2012

You can change the Youtube views values if you know them. Personally I think its a little weird to have that table in the first place because the values are changing everyday and it is really impractical and not necessarily important to the genre (there is no table like this on any other music genre's page either...). As you can see, this page is considered unstable because many biased people try to edit it for personal reasons. I am pretty unbiased myself. It would be helpful if you could use specific usernames or IP addresses listed in history so we know what edits you mean. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
What Trebonius says. Such a list of YouTube hits has little encyclopedic relevance. Sales numbers might be interesting--YouTube views are not. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, they are very interesting. For me personally. But, as TreboniusArtorius said, they are impractical. You won't be able to concentrate on rewriting the article if someone updates the table every second. But still, I personally think the numbers are extremely interesting and encyclopedic (providing that you didn't forget some songs). --Moscowconnection (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

People want the list, see the article feedback: Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/K-pop. One person says: "last tim coudn't find the list of the most wached mv's but now i could find it". --Moscowconnection (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to add that list, because unlike other music genres, K-Pop's success is quite dependent on YouTube. (This view can be verified with countless respectable news sources, if needed) 20 Vidoes is perhaps a little too much considering how short this article has become, but I think 10 videos seems fair to me, in my humble opinion -A1candidate (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding updating of views: When a list of popular K-Pop videos are added, there may be objections by some because of having to update the views frequently. In this respect, I dont think Wikipedia should as as a live counter for video views, rather, the views should be rounded off to the nearest ten million (or million, for the more popular videos). -A1candidate (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Another idea would be to update the list weekly or once in 2 weeks or once a month. Above the list, we can put a note in italics saying that the list is updated once a month and the latest update was on October 1. But the problem is that some random people may come and may want to update it. --Moscowconnection (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone has already added a list of the 8 most viewed videos, a couple of days ago. I've just replaced it with a top 10 table per A1candidate and this comment by TreboniusArtorius and therefore 3 users being for the inclusion of a top 10 (with Drmies being against). I also added a note that only videos uploaded by the copyright owner are allowed in the list. It is already necessary because there's an SBS performance of "Gangnam Style" on a channel that doesn't look official, it has 61 million views already. --Moscowconnection (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest truncations and other changes

Don't be upset by the latest large truncations by Drmies. I think he should have waited until the article is finished. And he also removed too much. If the aim is to make it a good or even a featured article, then the truncations were unnecessary, since sooner or later the article would have been reviewed and rewritten a bit anyway. So, if you think that something is important, add it back. Also, I took advantage of the situation and rearranged sections. My version is not final, feel free to rename everything and rearrange sections again. --Moscowconnection (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Drmies's edits combined. He argued that some of them were spam added with the sole purpose to link someone's favorite groups, but I don't think the edit history proves it. I think some of them are important and should be added back. There haven't been that many K-pop events and TV shows outside of South Korea to begin already to choose what to include and what not to include. --Moscowconnection (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I will restore half of most of what Drmies deleted. The section is not less random now than it was before the deletions, it simply contains less information. I can't determine what's important and what's not. By the way, there have been some global campains organized by the Korean government, the section doesn't say that. (Some of the events discussed in the section are actually parts of global campains.) Yet, there's a story about some Moroccan hip-hip group plagiarizing Super Junior, I will remove it now. --Moscowconnection (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I have created a new section at Wikiproject Korea: K-pop articles coordination. It could serve as an initial coordination place for K-pop articles and as a central reference point where the problems they face as a group of articles could be centrally addressed. It could also be expanded into a different subpage, something like a K-pop working group. You are, of course, welcome to create any such new subpage if you think it is necessary. This subsection is just a proposed starting place.--Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure it will work. If the purpose is to invite new editors, no one will notice. The page has 3 visits per day: [4]. --Moscowconnection (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
      • No. That's not the idea. This is not some new type of K-pop Teahouse. The idea is for editors who know each other to keep centrally informed about articles needing work or references so that removals of material may be better coordinated. Also information about sockpuppets changing positions and to which articles this is happening can be centrally added there. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I restored the globalization section more or less. I tried to combine related facts. There are some more patterns that can be traced. Like, annual festivals and SM Entertainment tours in the USA. They are notable and important, since there haven't been that many K-pop concerts in the United States yet. --Moscowconnection (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The article uses "K-pop" as adjective in every sentence. It's frightening. I'm not sure the combinations "K-pop group", "K-pop idol" even exist, you can simply remove the word "K-pop" or say "Korean". "Korean pop group" sounds better. "Band" "Group" is even better cause it's obvious they are all Korean. --Moscowconnection (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Using word "band" is simply wrong in most cases, because the word implies members can and do play instruments too. Monni (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • It was just an example, I didn't want to change all instances to "band". "Group" then, "boy band", "girl group". There are the following combinations in the article: "K-pop boyband", "K-pop band", "K-pop girl group", "K-pop act", "K-pop artist", "K-pop singer", "K-pop concert" ,"K-pop event", "K-pop festival", "K-pop channel", "K-pop venue", "K-pop idol", "K-pop flash mob", "K-pop fan", "K-pop company", "K-pop industry", "K-pop video", "K-pop YouTube view", "K-pop trend", "K-pop reality show", "K-pop sound", "K-pop style", "K-pop chart", "K-pop choreography", "K-pop competition", etc. (^^;) --Moscowconnection (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I do think that there is nothing wrong using K-pop as shorthand of "Korean popular music", but using it in way that would not be grammatically correct when written in full form should be revised like anything else "non-English". Changing "K-pop" to "Korean" changes meaning of the sentence, so that's not a solution. Monni (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I meant simply that the word "K-pop" is used too many times in the article. Most of those instances can be simply deleted, cause it is not necessary to call Super Junior a "K-pop boyband". It may be needed in some contexts, but mostly you can say "Korean boyband Super Junior", "boyband Super Junior", "Super Junior". Like, it is not necessary to write every time: "The high point of the K-pop agency S.M. Entertainment's K-pop tour in the USA was when the K-pop boyband Super Junior suprised American K-pop fans by performing an English-language version of the K-pop hit "Sorry Sorry". (Sure, I invented that.) That's all. :-) Read the complete article, you'll know what I mean. (I don't recommend it, you may start hating the word "K-pop" afterwards.) --Moscowconnection (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, I can agree about "K-pop" being used simply as shorthand (and in case of the YouTube channel and K-pop festivals and global events it's used by the Korean government and the Korean music industry as something like a trademark), but still the word "K-pop" is used too often in the article. The people who read it probably already suspect that the article is about K-pop, so it's not necesary to repeat it again and again. --Moscowconnection (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Maybe once in a section is enough... Only once in the article is kinda overkill... I don't think it's possible for me to hate the word K-pop as I work for company who use it everywhere, even in their name. Monni (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't want to artificially limit the use of the term. The article should use it many, many times. Sometimes 2 or more times in one sentence are necessary or simply sound good. --Moscowconnection (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
            • I don't want to make artificial limits either, but it does look bad if it is constantly repeated even though it's the main topic of this article. We don't constantly repeat the article title on any other pages either. Monni (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
              • Okay, let's then use it less if everyone agrees. I'll delete a few now to start. --Moscowconnection (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Only use "K-pop" when it is relevant or needed. For instance, when mentioning the style itself, or noting that a festival, event, or concert was devoted specifically to K-pop. We assume that the artists are K-pop unless otherwise noted.--¿3family6 contribs 21:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with you because when I was editing this page the word 'K-pop' was used like three times per sentence, and on top of that 'Korean' can be more precise in general for a global audience. I don't think changing the word from "K-pop" to "Korean" would change meaning in contexts, such as the example with Super Junior above, depending on if the 'popular' aspect is integral to understanding or not. PS, It looks like a lot of the excessive details in this page have been trimmed down since last time I was here so good job Moscowconnection TreboniusArtorius (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

To Chikazuku: I moved all the images to the right because otherwise section titles were all over the place on my 1920x1080 screen. You moved two pictures back, and now the titles "United States and Canada" and "Africa, India, and the Middle East" are to the right of the photos. I think it's very unconvenient. For example, I want to read about the United States snd I need to scan the whole page with my eyes to find the title. Let's move all the pictures to the right for now. --Moscowconnection (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for US State Department video

  • I've swapped a picture of a K-Pop advertisement (Which, in my opinion, is shot from an awkward angle that does not show the advertisement clearly) with a video of K-Pop being mentioned during a US State Department briefing. I think it could qualify as a significant event, that an official representing the US government tells the international media that her daughter is a K-Pop fan
    • I've just watched it and I'm disappointed. I had to click Play and wait and nothing interesting happened. (^^;) I think the video is useless. And the OGG format doesn't play in all browsers (in the default configuration). --Moscowconnection (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Did the video play at all? What other formats are there available in WP? -A1candidate (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I had to switch from Internet Explorer to Google Chrome to watch it. Here's a Wikipedia help article about playing OGG: Wikipedia:Media help (Ogg). It seems that only GIF animation and OGG can be uploaded to Wikipedia: [5]. --Moscowconnection (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I think most people using Firefox wont have problems viewing it, but why do you think its uselss? I think its quite siginificant that a government official, in her official course of duty representing the US government, tells the international media that her daughter "loves korean pop". Its probably the first time anything close to this has ever happened, in my humble opinion -A1candidate (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
            • She said it on her own behalf. I have "Gangnam Style" in my watchlist, so I'd already heard about the video and thought it was something important. The spokesman simply said her daughter "loves Korean pop". She hadn't heard about PSY and "Gangnam Style", by the way. You are using the video in the article about the song, while what happens in the video is that a person who looks Korean asks "Do you know Gangnam Style?" and the spokesman says "No." --Moscowconnection (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
              • Of course, at that particular moment, she can't be representing the US government when she said that. Therefore, I cannot say that the US government came up with that comment. Nevertheless, in the entire context of the video, she does indeed represent the State Department, which, I believe, gives a little weight to her comment even though she went out off topic. Of course, she had denied that she has heard of Gangnam Style (which, in my opinion, is the only acceptable answer during a serious international press conference, otherwise it could lead to embarassing questions), which is why I only included the video in the "External Links" section in the "Gangnam Style" article. Here though, she clearly mentions the term "Korean Pop", which is all the more significant, considering that it was the spokesperson, and not the reporter, who first brought up that term. -A1candidate (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
            • By the way, do you know a place where I could find a regularly updated list of the most viewed K-pop videos on YouTube? I added the list to the Russian Wikipedia article, but there are 20 videos and it will take me too much time to check the number of views reguarly. --Moscowconnection (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Im not aware of any website that does that. But in any case, I think it might be a good idea to add that list to the English Wikipedia too, because unlike other music genres, K-Pop's success is somewhat dependent on YouTube. 20 Vidoes is perhaps a little too much considering how short this article has become, but I think 10 videos seems fair to me, in my humble opinion -A1candidate (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I also think the list should be included. I think it's encyclopedic. I think people who visit the article will appreciate it. I've already raised the question above, but no one seems to care. --Moscowconnection (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, I've removed a picture of G-Dragon, since it no longer falls under fair use policy and will get automatically deleted soon anyway. -A1candidate (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You might as well add the table because I suppose it does have some value. 20 artists is definitely too much, 10 sounds good. At the same time I don't know if we want people to think that anyone who watches the Gangnam Style video on youtube is a K-pop fan, or even knows that its from Korea and not Japan (lol). But as an editor its hard to differentiate between a viral video and a 'popular' song just based on Youtube views so IDK. As for the State Department video that was added I think it is for the most part worthless and seems to be trying to make K-pop seem more popular in America. Thats why the picture of Obama was removed. It might as well receive a brief mention in the right section, but it is too insignificant for a video. We don't want this page to seem America-centric when it should be about Korean Pop. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the video, as per consensus. Added back another image, which depicts the worldwide popularity of K-Pop better than the previous one, in my opinion. -A1candidate (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Obama quote

While a picture of Obama is indeed irrelevant in a K-Pop article, I think it is fair to quote him mentioning about the Korean Wave, especially in the context of the globalization of K-Pop, its also a good way to draw the attention of the reader, in my humble opinion. -A1candidate (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that would go better under the United States sub section? Its a little specific for the intro TreboniusArtorius (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems more like a non-specific statement, in my opinion. If he had mentioned a particular country/continent that caught the Korean wave, then it would indeed make sense to place it that country/continent's particular section. However in this case, it would be better to put it just below "Globalization" (since its many people from all over the world that caught the wave) -A1candidate (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Now that I re-read the article, the President was talking about social networking sites and K-pop isn't even mentioned. And the fact that he said it while in South Korea obviously makes this statement much less significant. Now I think it belongs on another page entirely lol. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
He used the word "Hallyu", which is defined in that article as "The term for the surge and spread of Korean pop culture" -A1candidate (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
So you are implying that Obama's statement is probably also referring to K-pop music. Even so, it is clear that his statements were designed to please his South Korean audience and are probably biased in that regard. The statement doesn't really have any substance either and might be better to paraphrase or use an inline quote. Why is it in pull quote format anway? TreboniusArtorius (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think K-Pop should be considered a vital part of Korean Pop Culture, text before quote emphasizes the statement was made during official trip to SK, opinion not entirely biased because its supported by 3rd party sources. In my opinion, pull quotes may be used to highlight important statements -A1candidate (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Allkpop and Soompi as sources of information

A few months ago, before I came, there seemed to be debate about whether Allkpop and Soompi are considered reliable sources of information. Somtimes they may get their information from Facebook posts, Tweets, and YouTube videos, etc. However, generally speaking, they do have an editorial team that checks through each and every article thoroughly (especially for Allkpop).

But the most compelling evidence for their reliability would, in my opinion, be the fact that journalists from some of the most influential newspapers in the world have used them as a source of information (not to mention countless other reporters from less important news sources). For example:

  • Allkpop:

Salvador Rodriguez from The Los Angeles Times

(http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-psy-eric-schmidt-gangnam-style-20120927,0,1267968.story)

  • Soompi :

Mark McDonald from The New York Times

(http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/little-monsters-in-south-korea-are-not-amused/),

Jeff Yang from The Wall Street Journal

(http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/08/28/gangnam-style-viral-popularity-in-u-s-has-koreans-puzzled-gratified/)

I believe this should put an end to any debate about their reliability as sources, but should the need arise, a simple search on Google would suffice to prove that these aren't the only newspapers using the above mentioned K-Pop websites as sources of information. Of course, not everything they say is automatically true, but in my humble opinion, it would seem unfair to discredit them entirely as "Gossip blogs", for they do contain information that seems acceptable to Wikipedia. I think discernment should be wisely used when quoting from these sources. If there are better sources of information, then use them, if not, Allkpop/Soompi should, in most cases, be fine -A1candidate (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In many cases they translate from major Korean newspapers, so there should not even be a debate whether they are reliable resources for Wikipedia. Basically they are the only major sources of Korean entertainment news In English. I tend to use the Korean sources, as Allkpop and Soompi usually credits the newspapers they took the story from but it is indeed a mishap because the readers of these Wiki articles are mostly not Korean speakers so they cannot really do anything with Korena language sources... Allkpop also already has a steady very steady reputation in the industry, the most famous K-pop stars from 2NE1 to Wonder Girls to Big Bang have visited their editorial office and given them exclusive interviews. I think a lot of editors here who question the reliability have actually no clue about the K-industry at all. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there consistent evidence of bias in their translations?
Assuming not – I'd say, where they don't credit original sources, the items's not a reliable source.
Where they do credit original source(s), bundle the Allkpop/Soompi cite with cite(s) for those original source(s) (using the language-parameter as appropriate) and then the totality is an accessible and reliable source [assuming the original source(s) are reliable in themselves].   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I hardly ever see Allkpop cite the original source, but in the cases where they have the link at the bottom, we should cite the original article, and then add to cite web "laysource = Allkpop" and "layurl = " to point to the Allkpop article, since it is pretty much an abstract/summary of the Korean article, if not a translation. This assumes there is value in having the Allkpop article readily available. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

List of most viewed K-pop music videos on YouTube as of August 2012

Why is this a separate list? And why is it even relevant? I could see if you want to track the growth of popularity based on Youtube, but this table doesn't even do that. It's just a one month blip of misc data. Evaders99 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That extra list is redundant. We already agreed on including only the top 10 videos and nothing more -A1candidate (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring started

I started rewriting the article based on the featured huwiki article. I try to keep as much of the original text as possible, where possible. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 20:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Finished. Would be nice if it could be reviewed for grammar and spelling, just to fix minor issues (I'm not a native speaker of English). I think it could be considered for GA or even FA. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 15:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Positioning themselves

A1Candidate, please explain this quote: "According to the news agency Reuters, the success of PSY's 2012 single Gangnam Style has led to other K-pop artists positioning themselves for a similar breakthrough in the U.S. music industry." How are they positioning themselves? Physically? Mentally? And what is the significance? You copy and pasted parts of it directly from the reference but the article doesn't even explain what the actual 'positioning themselves' is. The article doesn't even give sources for any of its information. What the article does say is that Korean *companies* have been marketing more in the United States and that PSY is trying to learn English. It doesn't say anything about other artists. Its just a bad article in general. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with copying just a single sentence from the source to support a statement, I've explained further what 'positioning themselves' for a breakthrough would mean to the clueless reader. (Such as successfully entering BOTH the Billboard 200 and the Billboard Hot 100, for example). -A1candidate (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
That explains it a lot better. Its better to use concrete information better than weasel words and metaphors. The only problem is that article fails to mention two of those artists have only made it onto the Korean and Japan Billboard Hot 100 lists (which you can find at http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100#/artist/wonder-girls/977737 http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100#/artist/girls-generation/977738. And I thought bigbang got on the Billboard 200 before Gangnam Style was even released? TreboniusArtorius (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The Wonder Girls' single "Like Money" hit #22 on Billboard's Hot 100 earlier this year, while Girls Generation charted on the Billboard 200 with their EP Twinkle. (,MTV). And also this, as for BIGBANG, their lead singer G-Dragon's album charted after Gangnam Style, see G-Dragon Album and Song History Chart . But Im going to rewrite the paragraph to include other stuff-A1candidate (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Alive got on the Billboard 200 in March, well before the Gangnam craze, and before Twinkle. http://www.billboard.com/news/k-pop-hot-100-bigbang-is-unstoppable-1006434952.story It was the first Korean language album ever to enter the Billboard 200, which is based on sales. http://www.allkpop.com/2012/03/big-bangs-alive-charts-on-the-billboard-200 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 19:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge Comeback into this article

Comeback (K-pop) Should be merged to K-pop, this is too short to have its own article, and the section about "notable comebacks" is totally unmanagable. For one, every comeback of a notable artists is notable, as it is covered widely by Korean media, Allkpop, Soompi, etc. You cannot pick two of the comebacks from hundreds. If we delete that section only avery short article remains and nothing more can be written about this, really. Totally useless to have it in a separate article. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 21:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I Agree. It should be merged and added to the K-pop Culture section. Jae ₩on (Deposit) 23:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
As no oppose came in a week's time, I merged this. Also because various anons were adding inappropriate stuff into that article. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 09:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Some proposals

There doesn't seem to be any reason to link C-pop and J-pop in the infobox other than that they're all in the same region of the map. It should instead include other forms of music in Korea like Pansori or Korean hip hop. Thoughts?

Second; why is there is critic section on a entire genre of music? This is the only genre article that even has one. Criticism is all well and dandy but opeds and reviews belong in a artists/album page. The "manufacted" tidbit is already in the characteristics section, there's no need to repeat it to make a point. Scandals like contract disputes and incidents of sexual misconduct belong in the SM Entertainment and Open World Entertainment pages. It shouldn't be used to broadly paint an entire music strata.

If there are no objections, I'll be removing the aforementioned items in 2-3 days. Stateofyolandia (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"no consensus of the topic" this is admittedly true but I didn't think that it was contentious content. Is there a reason why you feel the criticism section should be included a genre page, specifically the K-pop page Lucas? Stateofyolandia (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose K-pop is highly criticised and it is encyclopedic content. It also stands as a balance, provides nutrality and more of an outlook on the topic. Saying that K-pop is all wonderful and spreading and influence etc, is all nice and all true but in the meantime the Western world heavily criticises the genre for various reasons. The fact that other genre articles don't contain criticism doesn't mean we should remove it when it clearly belongs to the topic and makes the article complete. Wikipedia aims to provide all-around knowledge on a topic not just partial information. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 18:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying it's included for balancing purposes? By all means, remove the "K-pop is all wonderful and spreading and influence" portions. I think it's a bit top heavy myself but that's neither here nor there. And have you check the sources in the section? Some have even been purposely taken out of context. Also, I'm pretty sure the CNNgo (a travel portal) and one or two blogs doesn't reflect the "Western world". If we're being sensitive to every blurb then every article in wikipedia would take too long to load. I'm all for over neutrality, but presenting the industry/genre as this convenient unified narrative for which to quote every related opinions is not neutral at all. In fact, it's just an excuse for people to go source-hunting to present their own opinions. To be honest, that whole section just kind of reads like it was written by someone with an axe to grind. Like the constant "Korean companies" this and "Korean industry" that, which I have toned down and corrected some grammar in later edits (not the current one). I don't quite understand how separating incidents that is related to a music genre, somehow not neutral. You would think it be the opposite! I actually think he fact that other genre articles don't contain criticism pretty much screams that is section is not neutral content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it shouldn't sweepingly generalize an entire country's music (in good or bad terms), then we're going to into subjective territory. I mean it's great for a columnist or a blogger, but not here. Stateofyolandia (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
did you check the other sources? BBC? New York Mag? We could have listed other sources as well, there are tons of it. The article's language is not biased, why should we remove sections on influence? The soltuon is not that we reduce the article to a mere statement of what K-pop is, but that we peovide a balance between points of viiew. The article tells in a neutral way about the influence and spread of K-pop, it should also tell about the negative aspects of the genre. THIS is what balance means. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 19:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying it's taken out of context (not including the blog posts). As in K-pop=X, rather than being presented with what they are; incidents that happened at x time in x place. It's the inclusion of every incident, scandal, opeds, that is related to the music genre that neutrality problem lies. It really is more appropriate include that sort of stuff their respective wiki pages. Stateofyolandia (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
BTW I don't quite understand your "balance" shtik. For example, you if hate Hip-hop then just don't listen to it. I don't understand how a genre has other "points of view". It's not like it's a political topic with differing views and interpretations. Stateofyolandia (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment - While I think its perfectly fine to include a criticsm section, most of the points can be summarized in a few simple sentences, and there's no need to mention the DBSK vs SM case again. Also, the criticism for sexual harassment and suicide doesn't really belong here. (Such incidents happen everywhere, not just in the music industry). Thats why I've removed several sexual harassment/suicide cases which really don't seem to occur more frequently than elsewhere, and lastly I've summarized a few points so that the entire section doesn't repeat itself -A1candidate (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that A1candidate. It's a lot more cleaner and precise. But the only problem here for me is the first statement, which pretty much qualifies as an opinion. It's not that I don't think it's true, in fact in a lot of ways I agree with it but it is still a subjective statement (as in others might think differently). I think a wholesale "review" of an entire genre is better left to music portals. Thoughts? Stateofyolandia (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope the problem would be solved by my addition of a few more refs from serious sources directly supporting that first criticism, which isn't that difficult considering that almost all media sources reporting about K-pop have mentioned about the "Westernized" sound of the genre. Whether this is criticism or not is debatable, but it certainly isn't any praise. Perhaps you could leave out the first statement if you feel strongly against it, but I think most, if not all K-pop songs share these same characteristics. Criticism isn't usually directed to individual songs either, but rather, to the genre as a whole, so thats why I think its worth a mention. But I won't stop you or anyone who feels strongly against it, because anyone who knows what K-pop is probably knows that such criticism exist. Its just placed there to avoid giving the feeling that the article is trying to promote K-pop, I think. Cheers^^ -A1candidate (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Since you are not stopping anyone, I will put the deleted parts back. I think there is a scandal that is covered in too much detail, though... But it's not for me to decide what to leave in the article and what not, so I will just copy-paste everything back. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Moscowconnection, I'd appreciated if you would refrain from kind of all encompassingly reverting any changes I made. It doesn't really help with the discussion. It's not my behavior that's in scrutiny here, rather the inclusion of the criticism section. Stateofyolandia (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You're right, but I was thinking it is less a criticism but part of the characteristic. I think we could implement the "Western" part to the above section, but like I've said earlier, the criticism section just kind of mirrors the whole article but in a condensed and highly consentrated form. Stateofyolandia (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I won't say anything else, but I'm a bit alarmed by the proposal... --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment I've just seen the latest changes,. So, it looks like the proposal was implemented after all. I think it made the article non-neutral. That doesn't mean that I think all the scandals should be mentioned in the article, but I suggest to undo the changes until there is a consensus. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I put everything that Stateofyolandia removed without a consensus back. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Now, my proposal: There is a paragraph starting with "The Korean entertainment industry has also been struggling with ...". I propose to shorten it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment – I was trying to somehow implement "western music patterns" into the characteristics sections but it already says; "It is a mix of genres like pop, rock, hip hop, R&B and electronic music." I think it's kind of self-explanatory at this point (those are "western" music genres), like how many K-pop songs have you heard utilizing pansori? It's a bit unfair to say K-pop is "Unoriginal, shallow character which copies and plagiarises Western music patterns" when the modern pop music trappings are ubiquitous as McDonald's, that and the source links to a Hyori scandal. Again, I really think we should avoid categorizing everything on a macro level, the only criteria being it slightly related to K-pop. Stateofyolandia (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking of putting this after "Singer Insooni complained that..." Flows much better and goes with the section narrative I think.
Singer Insooni complained that "the songs that we sang back in the day are still sung today. But music these days - people perform for three months than [sic!] stop. Fans have lost a sense of responsibility."[1] The genre has received substantial criticism for its strict training regime and "pre-packaging" of idol bands and songs for fast consumption[2], heavy emphasis on visuals elements[3][4], and lack of English words in its lyrics and "meaningless" song titles[5][6]
I am worried about the seoulbeats.com and hellokpop quotes but I'm willing to just kind of let it slide. Stateofyolandia (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Stateofyolandia removed sourced information without a consensus. We have opposing votes by Teemeah and by me and a revert from Lucas RdS. I can't see a consensus here. I reverted. There's no need for a consensus to add it back. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

First off, in your indirect reply to me in Lucas's talk page, you accuse me of being disruptive and added "Lucas is doing everything right." I didn't say anything or even threaten Lucas any way shape or form. All I've said was "Hi. Please join me in the talk page." That's it. I don't know if this is some sort of divide and conquer tactic but please stop. We don't need to draw lines, we're all in it to improve the article. I've only reverted his/her edit in case Lucas missed my rationale and promptly stopped after his/her revert - hence my topic initiation afterwards. You in the other hand keep reviving the C-pop/J-pop topic and the cosmetic surgery claims which have nothing to do with the current discussion (with no reason given) along with the badly written criticism section. The criticism section you've reverted was done by A1candidate, which I thought was a nice compromise and clearly shows progress in moving forward with the discussion. What your doing is putting a lockdown on the whole article, preventing any sort of improvement. A simple 'no consensus reached' as an reason to revert any sort of change doesn't cut it Moscowconnection. You have to give your reason in the talk page as to why. Refer to WP:BRD and WP:PNSD. You seriously seriously can't say that I'm the disruptive one when I'm actually engaging in the discussion and working to improve it. Come on. Stateofyolandia (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
1. I said that on Lucas's talk page because I thought that your message was a bit misleading and I wanted to show him my support. Your message looked like implying that he didn't have the right to revert and should have asked you first. 2. Yes, your edits looked very alarming to me, and I have the right to say it. Especially after I looked at your other edits and I saw you removing critical statements from other articles too. The statements may have been unsourced or unreliably sourced, but your edits still looked tendencious. 3. In the edit where you removed the links to C-pop and J-pop, you also deleted some critical statements. I wouldn't be strongly opposed to deleting just the links, but they were present in the article for years. Removing them needs a little more consideration than a one-sided decision. 4. A1candidate said above that he wouldn't mind someone to undo his changes. So I put the deleted parts back. He didn't vote for your proposal. It looked like an attempt to compromise with you. Even if it's not the case, he still should have discussed such drastiic changes with other editors first. 5. In the state before my reverts, the article fully deserved to be tagged with {{Fanpov}}. I'm fully okay with including all the details discussed in the article and I'm okay with it endlessly praising K-pop. But it doesn't look right when even a small critical section in such an article is being destroyed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
How did you get an invitation to join talk → veiled bullying/violating his wiki rights? And how exactly is that my problem? Your perception of me really has nothing with the discussion. All of my edits have edit summaries on them or I explain them here, it's not like I ninja them in while you just off-the-cuff revert others with the simple reason of 'no consensus'. Plus it's a bit ridiculous that I have to go through every edit changes with you like I'm some sort of convict reporting to a parole officer. If I feel a change is necessary I will do it (excluding the content in discussion of course). The fact is you have never given your reason as to why you are reverting my other changes and yet you expect me to sit there quietly? All right, this seems to be a common motif here. The rationale of "endlessly praising K-pop" is in no way good reason to actively try to find and present some sort of inherent fault with it. That's being dishonest. And really please, WP:BOLD if you feel that way. I have zero qualms of others rewording or removing part that is deemed "endlessly praising K-pop". I've even offered it as a possible compromise in my reply to Teemeah since she explicitly told me it was there to balance out the "K-pop is all wonderful and spreading and influence" bits. I expect a encyclopedia to read like an encyclopedia, not some undergrad's essay. But look, this is all moot dialogue. I think we got off the wrong foot you and I. So let's end this sort of back and forth shall we? Stateofyolandia (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
And Moscowconnection, when A1candidate said he wouldn't stop anyone, he meant the first statement of the revised criticism section. It doesn't mean a painful revert back to the old one. I suspect the reason he didn't really budge was because he assumed good faith and is just an all around nice guy unlike you and I. Stateofyolandia (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The essay recommends to discuss your changes after you are reverted. It is not what you did. You reverted back instead. Actually, you were reverted 2 times by 2 different people and still insisted. It's okay that you were bold, but now it is obvious that the changes are controversial and should not be implemented unless a consensus is reached on the talk page. There are two opposing votes votes already, by the way. -Moscow Connection (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure votes mean nothing if they don't participate WP:PNSD. And I reverted your revert of another user's edit. Can you explain why you are reverting my edits that are outside of the discussion? Stateofyolandia (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A person who is reverting and restoring the status quo ante doesn't have to discuss. It's the person who made the changes has to do it. See the essay above. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I've just seen your message on Drmies' talk page. There's no deadlock here. You proposed a change and people are discussing it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
All of my reasons are in the edit summaries, how is that a hard thing to understand? Like do I have to hold your hand and tell you that the source is complete shit? You can easily find that out yourself with the diffs. I don't think I'm being unreasonable. You reverted (with no real edit summary) and so I asked you a valid question. And of course there's a deadlock, you're just trying to make this into Stateofyolandia's therapy session or something. Stateofyolandia (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
And about our messages on Lucas RdS's talk page. Yes, when you revert a person, it may look like bullying. And by the time I posted there you had reverted me too... And I do feel like I'm being bullied a little bit... --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
That's some strange interpretation of bullying when I'm supposedly outnumbered with votes and all of my edits have been reverted by you. This isn't a confession is it? Stateofyolandia (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
No, what I did is not bullying. It is reverting a bold editor. On the other side, if, for example, an editor was reverted and when the editor sees that he/she is not getting the support of a community, it would be a logical option to resort to bullying. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal. Since Drmies and probably other admins who read his talk page is going to see this discussion, I will suggest how the controversies section can be improved. There is a paragraph starting with "The Korean entertainment industry has also been struggling with ...". It mentions a suicide which has nothing to do with K-pop. I don't want the mention of the story to be simply deleted, it should be moved to another, more relevant article. But the part "some of whom have committed suicides" shouldn't be in this article cause the sources cited don't mention a single suicide of a Korean pop musician. Also, the last sentence in the paragraph gives unnecessary details. It should be moved to a relevant article too. Also, it may be discussed if the whole paragraph is about K-pop or not. I don't know. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A note to admins. When I see people deleting criticism and references to J-pop, it sets off all sorts of alarms. There is a strong tendence for K-pop fans to bash J-pop, to deny that K-pop was influenced by J-pop in any way. On J-pop videos on YouTube, there are endless derogatory comments by extreme K-pop fans about how this Japanese song and that Japanese song copies K-pop. This article had a quote from an article on the Rolling Stone website that said that K-pop was a mixture of Western music and J-pop. I know cause I added the citation myself. It seemed like a very good article on a very reliable musical site. Actually, other parts that I wrote basing on that piece in Rolling Stone, are still here, but the mention of J-pop was deleted. The article currently seems to completely deny any Japanese influence. I don't have a personal opinion about how J-pop influenced the current musical state of K-pop, it does look like very, very lately it is the opposite, it is J-pop that is being influenced by K-pop now. But it is obvious that even the name "J-pop" was invented in Japan and then copied by other countries... We now have C-pop, K-pop, P-pop, whatever... You have a very strong influence here at least... (I do think that it was a very, very bad idea to call for admins to come here. I'm okay with the state the article is now. People who wrote it used the sources that were available to them, and they did a very good job. I think the article is very useful and all the details that may seem like "fan details" are very important too. But if an article is long enough, there surely must be room for a criticism section in it.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow. This explains sooooo many things. So you willingly admit to bringing in off-wiki bias and this is all part of some lame vendetta you have against K-pop? Damn bro, I'm just trying to make the article as neutral sounding as possible, not be part of your youtube netizen war. Stateofyolandia (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
What? What bias? I think you may have some bias, but I don't. I wouldn't go and delete links to K-pop from the J-pop article. And yes, J-pop links to K-pop from the infobox and no one deletes it. If it is about the sentence in Rolling Stone, I used the sources that were available to me and wrote what a reliable article on the Rolling Stones website said... There weren't many artcles about K-pop last summer. So, I found a good review, I expanded this article basing on it... (There have been some developments since then... So now, if I expanded the J-pop article, I would actually look for reliable sources to see if someone noticed that J-pop is being influenced by K-pop lately. It is a very interesting topic, I would like to know if any musical critics think it is the case.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
How did you make the article neutral by deleting crititism? A bit more criticism would make it more neutral, though. I can't be accused of anything cause I'm adding controversies sections everywhere. (That reminded me about something... I should add a few more controversies... But not here....) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead and de-link K-pop from the J-pop article jesus. Please. There is absolutely no reason that any ABCD's of pop should be linked to each just because they happen to be adjacent to each other. My God man, if this is about petty one-upmanship then damn right we need admin intervention. Stateofyolandia (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
What? I want J-pop to link to K-pop. The way you found my absolutely innocent statements offensive does look like it is you who has a very strong bias. Like you said yourself, your last reply "explains ...". --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This is really... going nowhere. If you want to link J-pop to link to K-pop fine, I don't care. I'm just stating my rationale, alright? Stateofyolandia (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This (our small argument) doesn't have to go anywhere. The article is back to status quo ante, now we should wait for more people to express their opinions about the changes you proposed. I, too, have attempted to propose small changes to start with that may satisfy you to some point, but you continue attacking me instead. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why did you add the POV tag? It looks terrible. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, all I did was bringing back a section which contained relevant materal for comprehension of the topic. When my edit was reverted, I was informed that "there was concensus" over it, so I checked this talk page and nobody had stated something over this proposal, so I reverted it back. It's funny how it really bothers K-pop fans to have their favorite music genre criticized to a level where they need to "summarize" the paragraph to make it look "less aggressive". That's what it seems to me. We need to keep a neutral point of view over K-pop; there are plenty of sources saying good and bad things about it. Thanks for your attention and I wish all of you good edits! Lucas RdS (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Im glad this section was brought back because this article really needs it, but Im not sure if all that material was/is relevant. One of my biggest issues with this section is its repetition of its points, such as "have copied Western patterns", as well as " being "copycats"" and "involved in accusations of plagiarism" and "catchy but derivative" and " relying on American sound", etc. These are all fair and relevant points, but is there really a need to repeat this so many times? Its not about making things "less aggressive" but more about making the article concisce and informative. Nothing wrong with repeated information, just waay too much copying/plagiarising/derivative/ and asserting the same point over and over again within 2 short paragraphs. The next point about shallow, manufactured music is again, fair and relevant, but no need to continously repeat it like K-pop does.
I agree. That's why I didn't just revert everything and left your new version in. Cause what you wrote made everything more clear. The controversies section as it is now is rather repetitive and therefore incoherent. But I think the section should actually be expanded, not the opposite. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Another issue that should hopefully be resolved is, that 2 or 3 notable scandals happen everywhere, not just in the music industry. If someone could explain how various scandals in K-Pop occur more frequently than elsewhere, I would strongly recommend this part to be expanded though -A1candidate (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure if the crimes mentioned there are relevant to K-pop. If they occurred because of how K-pop agencies and groups and the whole Korean entertainment industry operates, then it should be cleared up in the article. Actually, it may well be that the whole Korean government and business society encourages corruption and conceals some issues, here's an article in Korea Herald about it: [6]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I think there's a misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up between you and I Lucas. I didn't say "there was concensus" I said "please refer to talk pages" as in I thought you missed the memo or that you thought I removed it wily-nily. And really, I just want an article that sounds like any other genre article, it's not about some bullshit political goal. It just seems to me there is an exception of sorts in place of this particular article. Like the dailymail link used for "many of whom have undergone cosmetic surgery" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2222481/South-Korean-girls-obsession-double-eyelid-surgery-strive-look-like-pretty-western-celebrities.html. Article barely ties it up with K-pop by referencing a band called D-Unit. The "World and Its Peoples: Eastern and Southern Asia" book that supposedly backs up the claim gives no quotes or pages numbers and I couldn't find anything on googlebooks. Lastly seoulbeats is a sensational blog. See what I'm getting at? There's no real fact checking here. Everything is just given as easy pass for some odd reason. I could go on again with the "Unoriginal, shallow character which copies and plagiarises..." sentence. The sources attached to them do not mention anything of the sort, I kid you not. Now if you really feel like one publication's opinion is warrant enough, New York mag's quote "K-pop "catchy but derivative" is already in the article under Appeal and fan base. Granted, the Hyori scandal is relevant and but it's already mentioned in her article. You can't exactly say that I'm neutering the section Lucas, when things are haphazardly jumbled as it is. Stateofyolandia (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Come on, you should perfectly know that there's nothing new and unknown to the wide public. You can find better sources for everything. If you search, you will find them. On the other hand, your edits look very tendencious. Instead of attempting to make the K-pop article better, you simply removed the same sentences 1, 2, 3, 4 times. These are not constructive edits. --13:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Here, use this article about plastic surgery in Korea: [7]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, first it's an oped. Second, it doesn't give any factual evidence that "many of whom have undergone cosmetic surgery". Third, it's the entertainment industry. Lastly, could you stick with the discussion and not with the personal attacks? I think it'd be best we talk by proxies at this point. Thanks. Stateofyolandia (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Factual evidence? Wikipedia is written based on other sources, not on "factual evidence". A reliable source said it, Wikipedia uses what the source said. That's all. And the article I found repeatedly says "K-pop stars". --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what to say about your comment that "it's the entertainment industry". How couldn't you notice that the article said:

“K-pop stars and Korean celebrities have influenced the younger generation [to get plastic surgery]," says Dr Rhee. "For example, if you look at the before and after photos of K-pop stars you'll see they have gotten prettier. When people see this change, they want to be pretty as well, they want to look as good as them.”

K-pop is an international phenomenon. The pop stars are known for their catchy tunes, synchronised dance moves, trendsetting fashion and flawless faces; those big eyes, high noses and slim jawlines, features not inherently Korean.

They're also known for the amount of plastic surgery they get. With reference to one particular girl group, I was told their faces changed each time they released a new song.

There are exceptions, but it's a generally accepted principle that to succeed in the pop industry, you must be beautiful; in other words you must have those aforementioned features that define beauty. And if like most Koreans you are not born with these, you can – and should – change them, and many pop stars do.

I wasn't entirely surprised to hear about the K-pop industry's cosmetic compulsion, despite how systematic and excessive it seemed. What was surprising, however, was that the plight for perfection trickled down to the country's youth.

End of quote. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Article talks about celebrities having an influence on people. That's what the article is about; people wanting to get prettier because of people they see on tv. When I said "It's the entertainment industry", is that beauty is the golden standard, or else they wouldn't be on air. It doesn't justify the statement that says "many of whom have undergone cosmetic surgery" since there isn't some sort of statistical data that shows most K-pop idols have undergone cosmetic surgery. Clearly not a "hallmark" of K-pop but something that occurs in the entertainment industry. It just malicious at this point. Singling out South Korea in that regards is not npov. Stateofyolandia (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say the new source I found repeated the exact quote that's already in the K-pop article. But actually, it does say "many", it says "many pop stars do". Dr. Rhee can also be quoted to say that K-pop stars "have influenced the younger generation [to get plastic surgery]", which is even harsher. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
How can this be even proven? It's not like early training → cosmetic surgery → debut. Cosmetic surgeries happen in the entertainment industry, big deal. Stateofyolandia (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
How is the rest of the article NPOV? It just says how great K-pop is, while there exists the opposite opinion. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This article in New York Times mentions "deeply goofy rapping", "direct American influence": [8]. I found it in, like, 5 seconds. If you are really neutral, expand the article basing on it and on many other sources that I'm sure exist. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
How is that criticism or even remotely close to "Unoriginal, shallow character which copies and plagiarises..."? It's his way to describe the music he heard. In fact, in order describe something, people tend to use references all the time. So me get this straight, you reverted my edit because... it's supposedly readily available and common knowledge? Dude, wikipedia doesn't run on bar-room talk. I removed it because the it was an empty and just borderline stupid statement. I'm not trying to be an ass, but you should read up on WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Stateofyolandia (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I reverted you edits because you acted without a consensus. And you had been already reverted several times by then and continued. I don't have an opinion on the quote. It does seem very harsh. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
And what is "close" or "not close" is not relevant. If a reliable source wrote that K-pop is evil and satanic and everyone who hears it dies, it could be quoted in Wikipedia. :D --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's relevant. The quotes "deeply goofy rapping" and "direct American influence" doesn't equal the above. It's not our job to interpret what can mean. Stateofyolandia (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I did not say it equaled the above. I just said that the general statements about plastic surgery and about Western influence, etc. were very often repeated. I didn't say we could find another source for that direct very harsh quote you saw in the article. It's easy to find other sources for "unoriginal", "copies", though. If you show that that particular source is unreliable, we can use another one and repeat all the general statements in other, less harsh words.--Moscow Connection (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You know what, let's have a cool off period until the third party mediator arrives. Cool? Stateofyolandia (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
OK. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My five cents

This has really gotten out of control. Criticism is a valid section to add to any article. It helps to balance. It summarizes better than one or two sentences of criticism dropped all over the other sections. It helps to focus on the problems of this industry. I have been in Wikipedia for 8 years now, and goddammit, no one ever questioned my Criticism sections in any of my 1100 articles I have written so far, and this includes the K-pop article which has gone through peer review in huwiki and is featured. Entertainment industries all over the world have similarities but they have local differences as well. Press might focus on certain areas, and in the case of K-pop they do focus on the negative aspects. Scandals like the sexual harrassement issues of Open World Entertainment do have a place in this article. Scandals like the TVXQ lawsuit do have a place in the article. Because these are relevant, and it's like not mentioning the biggest scandals of the American pop industry in its own article. These were huge cases, that shook the industry in its roots. The JYJ vs SM lawsuit brought about law enforcement changes in how K-agency contracts are regulated and court ruled that from then on every agency has to have standard contracts that cannot go beyond 7 years. Yes, this is mentioned in the TVXQ article, but how would people who have no idea about what TVXQ is just want to look up K-pop, know that these changes happened in the Korean pop industry? K-op IS highly criticised for its factory system, for the way agencies treat their artists. This industry works on different principles than entertainment industries we are used to, therefore it is valid to include these in the article. You cannot make every article look alike just because this is "an entertainment industry". It's like saying apples are pears. No. They are both fruits but they are not the same. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 16:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why K-pop is an exception to the rule of npov policy or an exception to any other genre for that matter. Scandals shouldn't be treated as an all-compassing label, K-pop isn't some unified single organism. It's not someone's bio page, nor is it directory that covers everything that happens ever happens in the industry. What happened, happened, and it's covered in enough detail in both the Open World Ent and Sm ent pages. I don't have any problems about including the idol system since it is part of the training model, but it's already mentioned in the earlier sections. The sake of making or finding criticism for balancing issues is a bit flimsy to be honest. If there is a counterpoint to a claim (as in multiple views about a subject), that's fine, because it shows opposing views. But right now it's just an excuse to trash. Stateofyolandia (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is it an exception to the NPOV policy? Please point to where it says that there must be no criticism in an article about a music genre. Everything that reliable sources write about can be in an article. Everything. Wikipedia only repeats what reliable sources say. (And you can expand other music genre articles with as many criticism as you like. It's just that no one did it.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE for one, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:SUBJECTIVE, WP:WEASEL/WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (christ the all caps look horrendous). But again, it's not for me to decide at the end of the day. BTW I'm not wed to the idea of a complete removal, I did support A1candidate's rewritten version after all. Stateofyolandia (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE (especially), WP:IMPARTIAL and all the other policies you listed actually work against other things that are in the article, not against the controversy section. You shouldn't have called for admins and shouldn't have placed the POV tag, cause the tag looks like it was placed because the article praises K-pop too much, gives undue weight to the greatness of K-pop and to fan stuff. If you don't think this is the case, you should remove the tag. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Complaining to me about how the article "praises K-pop too much" won't change anything, I haven't edited since the end of 2011. My only gripe is with the content I brought up in my proposals. If you want to tone down on the praise, go ahead I'm not stopping you. Stateofyolandia (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Current issues

There's nothing wrong with including a section on criticsm, but not every single controversial event needs to be mentioned. Let me lay out the main issues I have with this section:

  • While the TVXQ lawsuit should be included because the artists and the entertainment agency involved were/are one of the biggest in the K-pop industry and it had a huge impact, the sexual harrassement scandal does not belong here, its a one-off event that actually happens less frequently than one would expect from such a rapidly growing music industry. The fact that the main culprit involved, Jang Seok-woo, doesn't have a Wikipedia article in either English or Korean is more than telling.
  • Nor does the single suicide of an actress (Note: Not a musician), as tragic as it is, really say much about the K-pop music industry either. If this was preceeded or followed by a new wave of suicides by K-Pop artists, then please mention it so that the reader does not have to jump to conclusions.
  • And the biggest issue I have is the countless repetition of the same points in the next 2 paragraphs, basically saying the same things in different words : "have copied Western patterns", as well as "being "copycats" and "involved in accusations of plagiarism" and "catchy but derivative" and "relying on American sound", etc. These are all fair and relevant points, but no need to repeat so many times in 2 short paragraphs.

And the following statement: "According to Seoul District Prosecutor Kim Kyu Hun, the arrests of Hwang Yong Woo and Kim Jong Jin were just the first in a wide-ranging investigation into systemic corruption in South Korea's music business." Who did these people accept payments from? Who exactly were they working for at that time? Are these people even notable? The article mentions that SM Entertainment was also later investiaged as well, but did SM Entertainment face any charges? (Just some of the questions I asked after reading the first paragraph, I believe focusing on these issues would go a long way towards finding a consensus.) -A1candidate (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I think the first part of 1 and 3 should actually be expanded to make it more coherent and to clear up all the questions. But I would probably made a separate section about the musical style where I would discuss both good and bad opinions. 2. It doesn't matter that some people aren't notable and that SM Entertainment didn't face any charges if there are reliable sources discussing the investigation. It seems interesting and important. Everything about corruption can be separated into a subsection to make it more clear what the part is about and to avoid repetition. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure SM is a major player, but it was an internal conflict. Anybody is welcome to critisize SM to their heart's content, but somehow alluring that SM represents the entire music industry/genre is a bit lofty in my opinion. Johnny & Associates had a scandal of involving underaged males, yet it's not exactly indicative of J-pop is it? It happened, his bio goes in more detail and that's it, treated as an incident. But again, I'm willing to compromise.
About third bullet point, couldn't we just move descriptions by Western publications to the characterics section? It already lists all the popular genres that are incorporated into mainstream music. Korean pop music is as diverse as any other, it's not exactly fair to describe it in a simple quote. Stateofyolandia (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is no need to repeat sentences (and this article is edited by way to many people, it's difficult to keep it coherent), we can decide what to put where but the criticism section is important. OK, take out the criticism on music and let's go for the other topics. Corruption. The Economist writes about how corruption in K-pop is similar to that of the 1950s industry in the US. I think this is a good enough source and a valid opinion from a critic. TVXQ has a place there and it should be expanded with how the lawsuit had an impact on the industry. Tons of sources are available on it. The suicide example is not that good, I admit, but there have been other suicide cases, and there are articles about how idol life actually drives people to the verge of suicide in Korea. I think it is worth a mention. This source also tells about how the "manufacturing" of idols affects these young people's lives, namely it causes psychological and socialization issues. Even the biggest stars talk about depression. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 19:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

All right Teemeah, you've convinced me on the TVXQ contract dispute. But I'm still iffy about the corruption bit. It was a bust on 29 people involved with an undisclosed cable-TV company (I'm suspecting Mnet (TV channel)?). I'm worried about adding suicides since it's caused by many factors and can't totally be blamed on one thing. I know South Korea has the highest rate of suicides per capita of OECD countries, but we don't have any real data that explains if it's because of the nation's average or if the entertainment industry is abnormally higher than that other countries. Also, if you're able to find a better, preferably a third party source that echoes the humanrightskorea.org article, I think we can make it work. Stateofyolandia (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I was asked by Stateofyolandia to have a look at this. I've read over most of the discussion and the article, and I'm not sure there is need for a big fuss. A controversy section, there is nothing wrong with having it as long as it is balanced enough and the individual controversies are reliable sourced and proven to be relevant to the genre rather than just one artist or management company (the latter may be a question of editorial judgment, of course). Other genres may not have such a section, but that's not a reason to not have it here. Imagine if Rock and roll had been written up in 1962 or so: it'd be controversy all over the place. So it's entirely possible that what is controversy now will be "history" in ten years; that's the nature of time. Anyway, I don't think you all need a mediator for anything right now, though I'll read the entire thing again, more carefully. What K-pop needs is some dedicated editors who care for the encyclopedia more than the genre, and this discussion gives me some hope. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Drmies, do you think we should find some sort of compromise with Stateofyolandia now, or can everyone just consider the proposal failed and go on with improving and expanding the article, without having to consult with Stateofyolandia every time? Can any material based on reliable sources be freely added to the controversy section or any other section in the future? I'm asking this because I'm afraid that this incident may result in Teemeah and A1candidate and other people becoming too cautious and afraid to expand the controversy section. (In my opinion, giving the current state of the article (which needs a lot of work), everyone should be free to add what they want, but any large removals of material should be discussed on the talk page first.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't see any reason to remove the information in the Controversy section right now, but you all know the sourcing better than I do. (And I hope you know that I don't consider allkpop et cetera to be reliable sources.) Right now there's a couple of paragraphs that at least seem to be decently verified; I think removals should be discussed individually. To reiterate: I see no valid reason in policy or in the comparison with other articles to remove the section as a whole, but (as with any controversy) editorial judgment needs to be exercised and opinions may differ. As for the J-Pop links and all, well, I don't see the need to link that, but that's not a very pressing matter.

        Consensus and editorial judgment put together means talk page discussion, but Stateofyolandia does not own the article (just like you and I don't own it). At the same time, "controversies" need to be handled delicately and not be added too hastily, but since this is not a BLP I don't think the wiki will break that easily. Does that help? I want to stay on the general side of things, and I have no opinion (as of yet) about individual "controversies". Maybe, though, you also know that I am much more concerned with articles on individual K-Pop articles than with the general article. Those individual articles are easily hijacked by fans and by management companies, unlike this big one. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm in no rush, since the consensus was to concentrate on issues one at at time. Although Drmies, could you give your take on the C-pop/J-pop delink and the cosmetic surgery statement that Moscowconnection doesn't seem to budge at? It's not part of the "current issues" but it's where most of the spat took place. Stateofyolandia (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have no strong opinion on that, as I said earlier. I don't think an infobox should have all the more or less relevant links in it: "Other topics" is really too vague, too meaningless. But that's just an editorial opinion: there is no way an administrator would intervene in such a content discussion one way or another, though the editor behind the admin might have an opinion (which is worth no more than any other informed editor's). Drmies (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I oppose all the changes you proposed. Please don't use weasel words to make it look like I support something. 1. Other people have not stated any favorable opinions about delinking J-pop and C-pop. Drmies said that he didn't "see the need to link that". Please don't make it look like there's some sort of concensus again. I personally oppose the delinking, just not strongly; 2. I've already explained that if you even prove that the current source for "many" K-pop artists having had cosmetic surgery is unreliable, there are better sources for the same thing, even for the same very sentence you want to delete. Yes, when writing about K-pop, it seems to be usual to talk about plastic surgery and about Western influence. Wikipedia just repeats what reliable sources said. If something is mentioned in a reliable source, it can be included in a Wikipedia article. (You will just stall all the development of the article like that. It would be really nice if you stopped and let everyone continue doing what they were doing.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Enough bickering: article talk pages are to improve the article, not to cast aspersions on other editors. Read my full comment in this now-hidden archive, including my promise to block whoever continues that inappropriate discussion here. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By the way:
  1. You make it look like I'm the only one who objects. Teameah expressed a very strong opinion above, and, as I understand, she is the one who wrote the most part of the controversy section. Lucas RdS objected and reverted you 2 times. A1candidate was glad your deletions were reverted. It's surely easier to single out one person (me :D) to attack, but there is actually a consensus against you.
  2. Your attitude seems even less constructive now, since other users have discussed improvements, but you continue to talk only about deleting something. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Huh? What did I say exactly? I just wanted him to go over stuff outside of the criticism section, specifically your revert. It's a dubious statement, and you say there are better sources but you never bring them up. Also, saying that there are better sources somewhere out there doesn't cut it. And calm down, my responses to you have always been courteous from the day we met. I don't know why you keep thinking that I attack you when it's clearly you doing the instigating. Stateofyolandia (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to say something peaceful, but I noticed you posted on Drmies' talk page again and again made it look like an issue only between you and me. There are many people here, and, basically, no one has supported you. I'm just replying because I happen to be here. Please don't try to make me look like an evil person. I'm just defending the article, the article that was perfectly happily expanding before you came and wanted to delete other people's work. I am not defending what I wrote or my personal opinion, I defend what other people wrote. I think you are trying to lure Drmies into saying "okay, let's delete the links to J-pop and the part about plastic surgery", after which you could make it look like an opinion of the whole Wikipedia. While in fact, no one actually supports you. Maybe some people don't care, but no one said "I want the links to be deleted" except you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Fine, no one supports me and everybody hates me, are you happy now? Christ. I'm talking about our issues to Drmies. End of convo. Stateofyolandia (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
You were discussed on 2channel on March 15. A person said you were Korean :D and did evil things on Wikipedia :D and the person desperately wanted help from someone who speaks English: [9]. Search for your user name. Anyway, I'm looking into it already... --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
It was about this, this, this. You tried to delete Four Commanderies of Han from Template:History of Korea three times. You acted in exactly the same way as here. You tried to make people think they should discuss on the talk page before reverting you, while actually it was you who should have done it beforehand. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
User:EJcarter is a sock of the banned Wlkr999 and Quendearn who stubbornly tries to add that in when the discussion to remove it already took place. Are you a 2channel regular? You do know it's a Japanese nationalist site don't you? WP:CANVASS is looked down upon in wikipedia. I've had my suspicions but this is pretty criminalizing evidence. Cheers mate, let's see what the admins have to say about it. Stateofyolandia (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
"Criminalizing evidence"? Please stop. Are you trying to slander me? And:
  1. 2channel is not a nationalist site;
  2. I would find it too humiliating to explain how I found the post. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion in 2004 did not end in anything. You are trying to trick everyone again. If you think EJcarter is a sock, go to admins with evidence, don't just say it here. You seem to know too much about Wikipedia for a person who had not edited since 2011 as you said. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Correction: They decided it was Korean history, decided to leave everything in and to add it to the Chinese history template too. Are all your arguments as truthful as this one? --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
An interesting edit summary by EJcarter: [10], comparing Stateofyolandia to an editor named Historiographer. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No more of this bickering here. Whatever you two have to say about each other, say it somewhere else. There's an ANI thread, and each of you have talk pages where you can talk this out to your heart's content. Accusations of socking and canvassing (off wiki or on) are serious and are not to be strewn around on article talk pages; such accusations themselves violate the assumption of good faith and civility and should be made (if they are to be made at all) in the appropriate forum and with evidence. Not here. I'm quite serious: if either one of you continue that kind of talk here, in a place for discussion of the article, I will block you. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Influence of k-pop

K-pop is sweeping the world these days.Influence of k-pop is incredible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyegyeong Yun (talk • contribs) 13:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's all strewn about in the article, hence my revert. For a more concentrated look refer to Korean Wave. Regards. Stateofyolandia (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I think the lead should be rewritten completely and what there is now should be moved to some other section. I find it complicated and unreadable. What is the Vice President of Peru doing there? And Diplo and some other artists most people have never heard about. I think the lead should just explain what K-pop is and say how popular it is currently. It should be short, a half of what there is now. All this links to unknown American singers, to Lima, etc. look terrible... Again, it's not fair to other artists to mention just Seo Taiji and Boys, PSY, Big Bang, G-Dragon and Girls' Generation. For example, Wonder Girls charted on Billboard Hot 100 first, where are they? --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead is much better now. Thank you, A1candidate!
I have a couple more suggestions:
1. The last paragraph of the lead sounds like only Korean immigrants listen to K-pop. I'm not sure it is the case.
2.1. The lead suddenly starts talking about the African-American community in the second paragraph. If it is so very important (which I'm not sure about), it can be placed lower, closer to the bottom or at the very bottom. Like, a sentence saying that Western artists have started collaborating with K-pop artists and producing them. There's also a problem that I see only one really notable example: Wonder Girls with Akon. (Where is the debut English album by 2NE1 that will.i.am was supposed to be producing? Did it disappear?) Therefore I'm not sure if the list is needed or even correct. Just a couple of names would look better.
2.2. A very short list of K-pop artists who charted on Billboard 200 and Hot 100 would be more useful for someone new to K-pop who decides to read about it on Wikipedia. But again, the links would look best at the very bottom, maybe even as the final words of the lead. Cause a list of blue links wouldn't look readable in the middle. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

On point 2.1, that was a weird sentence to read for me. I don't think we should be getting so specific as to saying many people in the "African-American" community are involved with K-Pop in the second paragraph. I agree that I'm not sure if this is important. In fact, I think its an exaggeration. The second reference, being a bad source, says "Big Bang, are buddies with Ludacris and Flo Rida, while K-pop R&B singer Se7en goes way back with Fabolous, Lil Kim and Amerie" as opposed to the article which is implying that they collaborate on music. Honestly I don't know if I believe that article at all.
on point 1, the last paragraph is using some sources to say that the "Korean Wave" and/or K-Pop is significant in some countries, and then proceeds to list these countries and also presents the geographic/ethnic backgrounds of some fans mentioned. The sources don't really provide any concrete information but they do provide an extraordinary amount of speculation and anecdotes. I hope someday we will have reason to think that the "Korean Wave" is actually a distinctive phenomenon, wouldn't that be nice? TreboniusArtorius (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is of course far from finished and the lede is not much more than a draft, which is why suggestions are always welcome. If you want to remove that "African-American" phrase from the introductory section, go ahead.

@TreboniusArtorius I dont think there's a need to overload the lede with refs. Foreign Policy and Agence France-Presse are considered reliable sources. If you find other sources claiming that K-pop isn't known at all in those places, however, then please add them so that there's a balanced point of view.

@Moscowconnection The collaboration between 2NE1 and will.i.am is not fully released yet, so Im afraid you'll have to wait until April 23. But its confirmed that 2NE1 will feature in the upcoming album. As for which K-pop artists to include in the lede, its anyone's guess. -A1candidate (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Lack of English words in its lyrics ?

I didn't see anywhere in the two sources criticizing the lack of English words, rather the misuse of them, specifically using the term "butchered". Here it is: "But with the problem of using English and made-up words in songs is that the end product has a fairly large chance of making no sense. English is often butchered and misused grammatically..." from the source [11] I'm changing it.

←== Jtwzz1206's edits ==

There has been attempts by a new editor named Jtwzz1206 (talk) to add some statements to the article (mostly criticism). Everything except the first edit has been rightfully reverted as POV and unsourced POV (by Arctic Kangaroo, A1candidate and me).

Since the editor didn't respond to several invitations to discuss the changes, I'm pasting all his/her additions here. Some of them are interesting, but written in a tone inappropriate for an encyclopedic article.

Here they are: 

(Characteristics)
K-pop can be described as a globalized music; as it is a mixture of Western and European sounds with an Asian flavor of performance. The way these Korean singers perform their songs with synchronized dance moves and complex gestures has increased the popularity of K-pop. It now takes a big place in the music market throughout Asia and the world. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/08/121008fa_fact_seabrook}}</ref>

(Appeal and fan base)
The global fans of K-pop started out firstly in Asia, especially among Japanese and Chinese teenagers. But the catchy and addicting music has captured the ears of people all around the world. Nowadays, the fan base of K-pop has extended to White, Black and even Caucasians of all ages. K-pop music has definitely found the way to become globalized and has learned how to attract the various people around the world into loving it. 

(Criticism)
K-pop may be gaining great popularity now, but there are some critiques such as that it is too focused on making money from the people who are obsessed with it rather than connecting and interacting with the music fans. The billion dollar music industry has allowed the K-pop musicians to make large amount of money and as this continues on, the real essence of music may be lost. Furthermore, K-pop has gained popularity in the West because of Psy and his hilarious dance moves and unique music style, more than the skinny girls and handsome looking boys dancing in synchronized moves. Therefore, if K-pop music only continues on making musics that only focus on the performers' looks, the big bubble may pop anytime and kick them out of the global music industry. <ref>{{cite web|http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/18/3516562/k-pop-invades-america-south-korea-pop-music-factory}}</ref>

(Characteristics)
These K-pop singers sing in catchy tunes "that somehow manages to simultaneously sound like just about every contemporary musical genre, a conflation of the various strains of electronic dance music — mostly trance, electro, and dubstep — arranged in conventional pop song structure."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/18/3516562/k-pop-invades-america-south-korea-pop-music-factory/|title=K-Pop takes America: how South Korea's music machine is conquering the world}}</ref> With the growing popularity in America and throughout Europe, K-pop has become a subculture to the West and is playing the bridge of bringing the two sides of the world together.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/18/3516562/k-pop-invades-america-south-korea-pop-music-factory/|title=K-Pop takes America: how South Korea's music machine is conquering the world}}</ref>

(Sales and market value)
According to the TIME "South Korea is a relatively limited market, compared with, say, Japan, which accounts for most of K-pop albums’ overseas sales. That’s why a lot of K-pop bands learn and sing in Japanese, among many, many other things."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://world.time.com/2012/03/07/south-koreas-greatest-export-how-k-pops-rocking-the-world/|title=
South Korea’s Greatest Export: How K-Pop’s Rocking the World|publisher=TIME|date=2012-03-07}}</ref> So a lot of the market sales that the K-pop management companies makes comes from the foreign music industries worldwide. Moreover, due to the small music industry in South Korea itself,their local market values consist of 40% being the record sales and the rest of 60% being these K-pop stars appearing in advertisements.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://world.time.com/2012/03/07/south-koreas-greatest-export-how-k-pops-rocking-the-world/|title=
South Korea’s Greatest Export: How K-Pop’s Rocking the World|publisher=TIME|date=2012-03-07}}</ref>

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/03/07/south-koreas-greatest-export-how-k-pops-rocking-the-world/#ixzz2P3c8aQ9x

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/03/07/south-koreas-greatest-export-how-k-pops-rocking-the-world/#ixzz2P3bdCBi

(Criticism)
Moreover, K-pop may currently seem to be in the big rise of popularity worldwide, but there are criticisms such as that a big part of it is "a manipulation of art and music that Culture Technology represents."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/18/3516562/k-pop-invades-america-south-korea-pop-music-factory}}</ref> Currently K-pop runs more on by the million dollar corporations and agencies that manage these Korean singers. K-pop should focus on connecting with the real music fans and try to share their cultural values rather than just trying to make money out of the world music industry.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/18/3516562/k-pop-invades-america-south-korea-pop-music-factory}}</ref>

End of quote. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If I may add my 2 cents, I agree that pretty much everything he/she says looks terribly like POV. One can easily scavenge the internet and get random articles to use as references to pretty much any point one wants to make, and that looks like it, from the inconsistency of the referrers (probably possible to get references with the opposite view too). Other than that, lots of "hidden" hatred in his/her heart lol. Caiowisp (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Youtube views update help offer

Hi there, I am a "moderate" K-pop fan (as in, not that knowledgeable, know only a dozen groups or so), but I do love hard data and statistics. I have an updated compiled data of Youtube views on my favorite K-pop groups and could easily expand it to encompass the most likely to reach the top 10 videos (not a big list, though). I would like to offer my help in keeping the list updated, as I agree that K-pop harvest a lot of worldwide fame (and probably some domestic fame too) from Music Videos, and most (if not all) are instantly released in Youtube (while some J-pop groups, for some random reason, order their MV taken down from youtube, go figure ...).

I would also like to offer a food for thought on the subject: some videos are released multiple-times, sometimes from different (yet official) sources, and end up splitting the counter among them. For instance, there are actually 5 official releases of "Oh!" by "SNSD" (2 japanese versions, 2 original versions from different accounts, one alternate edit), which sum up 93,312k views (while the most viewed version holds 64,422k). So my question is: should these official (keyword here: official) videos have their counts merged, should we just add as a "side note", should we separate Korean versions from Japanese/English versions, should be ignore this all together? Not an important point I know, but also not a moot point IMHO, since most of the views are usually people who load the video on the background to listen the song, thus the version they "bookmark" are not important.

Anyway, glad to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiowisp (talk • contribs) 02:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! The top 10 is more than enough I think. This is encyclopedia, not a blog. Even now, it's ridiculous that people change the numbers every day. It would be enough to update the videos once per month. In my opinion we should not cumulate views of different uploads however official they may be. A dance version is different than the original video and a Japanese version is yet even more different. And no note should be given on them, either. This would already be too much details on a tiny fraction of the article. It's more suitable to a blog than to an encyclopedia. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 17:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, specially about the constant updates, if there is no position change, it's not really important. Maybe people are just enthusiastic about PSY's new song, but it's going to remain number 2 probably for a long time. As for the list itself, perhaps we could add a comparison to the top hits of other continents MV's, like America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia... to highlight how important Youtube is as an outlet for Kpop. Even if other continents's MV have higher views than most Kpop MV's, the proportion of their market and the proportion of the views should speak for itself, I mean, a 50kk views MV is amazing for a 50kk population country (South Korea), while 200kk views on an, say, American MV, is less proportionally - 315kk people. What you think? This could add more meaning to the list.Caiowisp (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
That's original reserach. K-pop is not confined to Korea, it's a global genre, people from all around the world watch K-pop videos, as they do with American pop. It's out of context to say that a video from 50 million country gets less or more hits than a video from the US. It doesn't mean anything. If no credible sources conducted such a research and published its results, it will be original reserarch which is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. It would mean that you make statements based on your own way of thinking and not cite statements from trusted published sources. This is dangerous because it can distort facts. Psy is going to remain on the top of that chart, there is nothing to do about it. It's up to the K-pop artists to utilize their marketing tools to change that (ie make it big worldwide). When a credible source will analyze K-pop videos on youtube vs other genre videos on youtube, that's when you can write about them. IMHO. Wikipedia's duty is not to show new aspects but to summarize already existing ones. We organize what's been published, we don't do original research. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 21:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I see, surely original research isn't something that should be published, but I don't think that is actually any type of either research, nor original. One would only get views from MV's on Youtube's own top videos, and list alongside the already listed Youtube's videos. In fact, it would be less of an original research than listing Kpop, since we trust that people are being unbiased and not excluding any Kpop artists when one says the current list features all Kpop artists, while fetching the top MV's from Youtube's own top chart is faster and more reliable, not? You get a Justin Bieber video with some 800kk (America), Shakira with some 500kk (South America), Pitbull with 400kk (Central America) and Adele with 395kk (Europe), there, no research, just browsing Youtube's charts at http://www.youtube.com/charts/videos_views. Wouldn't you agree that a simple Korea-only list is less meaningful standing alone, then a list with other non-Korean artists for comparison? The random folk don't know if 1,530kk is too much or not in Youtube, or close/far from second place. The list, alone, is, as you well pointed out, kind of pointless. If we actually put Kpop and non-Kpop alongside, it turns into a comparision, and furthermore, it adds meaning: it points to the fact that Kpop have higher MV views, albeit together, than other pop industries. Also, The list as it is makes one believe that most of those MV's are significant in views numbers, when 61kk is nothing really that much (more than 10x less than Youtube's very own second place, at 800kk). Anyway, just trying to weight how to make that list have a better meaning than just stamped there, thus why I proposed added more info! Thoughts? Caiowisp (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thats exactly what original research is.That you take Shakira and Bieber and Pitbull and Adele and whichever K-pop artist and compare their youtube views.... What does it say about the popularity of a K-pop artist? Nothing. Shakira might be South American in origin but she is very much global in reach. Same with others. The origin of the artist doesn't contribute anything and these would be your one sided claims that you drew yourself from mere numbers. That's exactly what original reserach is. Such a comparison makes no sense to me at all. It won't prove anything but will give the false impression to readers that these numbers mean something to K-pop as a whole genre. Which is merely your opinion solely. It doesn't take into account the date of publishing of the video, and a lot of other factors. Besides, YT views are not represdentative of how many people viewed the video, because one person can watch it multiple times. So it doesn't mean anything about the reach or depth of what a K-pop artist achieved. Despite high view counts, K-pop is still basically unknown in mainstream pop worldwide. Yes, it has a huge following everywhere but if you stop 10 random people on the street and ask them who SNSD are, they will most probably look at you with blank eyes. So no original research please. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
+ one more thing. K-pop views on YT is solely because fans are more pasionate and dedicated. Every K-pop fan know that when a bias published a YT video, the whole fandom will rush to watch and watch it over and over again. The fact that they cannot see their favourites on TV in Europe and US also contributes to going to YT if they want to watch videos about them. Because usic televisions in the West rarely air K-pop. You can see Shakira daily on TV everywhere on this planet. Once again, please, refrain from such original research. Youtube views are not representative of worldwide popularity. Shakira sold 70 million albums, SNSD sold 4,6 million. If you ask random people about Shakira in EU or US they will be more likely to recognize the name, but NONE of the Korean artists, except for Psy will ring a bell to anyone outside of the K-pop fandom. That's the rude truth. And no YT view count will change this one for now. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 17:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I see, well, no can do than, though I feel your point also makes the current table useless. "what does it say about the popularity of" K-pop as a whole? Nothing too. It is more about Psy than K-pop, take Psy out of the picture, I doubt that list would be there. So in the end I come to the conclusion the list should be taken down, since it's both original research, and pointless to K-pop as a whole - move it to Psy's page, would make some sense. Anyway, any other way I can help with the article? English is not my first language but I can pretty much handle it better than some =p Caiowisp (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Im okay with the status quo, but another option would be to, perhaps, separate Psy's videos from all other K-pop videos by splitting the table into two parts. -A1candidate (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues with the encyclopedic and unbiased nature of this article

I was wondering the method of choosing which events were included in the Milestones section. For instance, Super Junior's concert tour in South America was included because it was the "most" concerts a kpop artist did on that continent. Seems much more logical as a milestone to mention the first concert by an individual kpop artist (JYJ), since it was a "first". Why focus on Super Junior's accomplishment? Next year when some other group goes there and does one additional concert in South America, you'll just have to change the milestone.

Additionally, the criticism section of this is so tiny. There are so many scandals involving agencies lying about concert attendance, giving tickets away to boost attendance, PAYING people to attend. There are unending scandals about agencies buying their own CDs to boost apparent sales (and I don't mean fan chatter on gossip sites). Even mainstream Korean media, in which the Korean government has a heavy hand, is beginning to question the authenticity of a lot of what's been reported, though admittedly mainstream articles on the subject are heavily nuanced as opposed to blatant. Much of the discussion is on the blogs of reporters.

Lastly, though the article has many citations, they are insufficient to present a balanced picture of kpop. For instance, the referenced Tohoshinki "Time" tour from this article was NOT profitable once costs were factored in. SM Entertainment SAID this after the most recent in a long line of disappointing SM quarterly reports was released. You're writing about each subject in this article, such as the tour I mentioned, based on ONE translation of ONE news article from ONE source. As such, everything is so misrepresented. Media in Korea is like media anywhere else - multiple sources provide more well-rounded coverage of a single subject by reporting and emphasizing different aspects of it. But kpop fans translate only articles that are flattering to their favorite artists, and sites like Allkpop are commercial ventures interested in making connections and revenue, not in providing well-balanced and comprehensive coverage of subjects. Even fans sometimes intentionally mistranslate articles to further their own agendas (such as the "fans" who turn out to be working for Korean entertainment agencies). Thus articles like THIS Wikipedia article wind up based on a narrowly-focused body of sources and in turn provide a very skewed picture of kpop. And actually, when I read many kpop articles here - Girls' Generation, TVXQ, whatever - they are so at odds with reality. I live in Korea and even many Koreans would laugh at the seriousness with which these articles present information that is known to be exaggerated or blatantly false by anyone but the most ardent nationalist. And I saw no mention of the backlash against kpop in Japan for reasons unrelated to Dokdo; look up the whole Fuji TV scandal. (I know it's hard with anything related to Japan, because real information tends to start getting mixed with general anti-Korean or anti-Japanese sentiment, but the information is out there.)

I don't know what the solution is, however, since native speakers willing to help are probably going to want to show the nice side of things and won't be willing to translate multiple articles on the same subject. So yeah. Just had to say my piece. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.192.153.50 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

you need sources for the things you listed, like the scandals. And you need to know that we cannot include every single scandal that occurs. It's simply not that place. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 14:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not interested in becoming a wikipedia editor. I'm saying the information is out there, and it would benefit the article (and other kpop articles) for authors to be diligent in obtaining information other than just the slanted stuff listed on fansites and Allkpop. And as for including "every" scandal, I'd say these types of things are so commonplace as to be a major characteristic of kpop. If you don't feel like looking for sources, then don't, but some other editor might care. I'm just letting you know that there is a lot of stuff out there you guys have managed to totally ignore, and in doing so have created a body of work that is not representative of kpop and is so scrubbed as to sound a bit like a publicity release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.192.153.50 (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Super Junior's S. American tour was included because they're the first to perform in cities across the S. American continent, whereas JYJ's tour was limited to Santiago and Lima. TVXQ's concert deserves a mention because ticket sales almost topped $100 million and that's something not many musicians (Korean or otherwise) can beat. If those scandals had some sort of an impact on the K-pop industry, or if its a highly notable case with international media exposure (such as TVXQ vs SM ) then it may be worth including -A1candidate (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I was going to point out the same as 편지 (letter), that poping things out of your head, probably from ONE media source (which is so criticized by yourself) can't be taken seriously, specially without sources. But here is a question for everyone that maintains K-pop: Why bother with criticism? What's the encyclopedic value? Not even the youtube counters are important, and then there is the criticism area. I did some searching around and you don't see that in any other mainstream music genre article, because quite frankly, it's pointless in the GENRE. The criticism here is towards certain companies or particular practices here and there, not as a general. I myself know plenty of groups and artists that where not involved in any of those criticisms, but thanks to Wikipedia, people think they are part of it. Why K-Pop (genre) gets criticism - not even enough, 175.192.153.50 even wants MORE criticism. I don't see the scandal of Lady Gaga underpricing her albums to get more platinum/gold record prizes on sheer sales numbers in Pop or Rock section (maybe in Lady Gaga, but even that wouldn't be much to the point). It is my believe that criticism should be located at an Industry (of music) article, not in an article about Pop music from a certain country (in this case, South Korea). Spice Girls was built from ground up, did that make UK-Pop get criticism? no, Spice Girls did. So SMTown have issues, list them (with multiple sources) in SMTown article, not K-pop. That's my opinion. Caiowisp (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem with this is that K-pop is a very specific genre. It'a not like pop or rock in general, where it would be impossible to determine general criticism. This is still an underground genre very much confined to artists coming from one single country, though there have been attempts to create foreign K-pop artists in other countries. The criticism is widespread for the whole of the K-pop industry. The slvae contract issues are pretty much an everyday occurance in K-pop (with VERY few exceptions). Treatment of artists is very much different from the rest of the music industry on this planet, and it does receive a lot of criticism from Korea too, and from abroad as well. Scandals like the TVXQ issue shook this particular industry in its cores. It's like you would not include the 1997 ASsian financial crisis in the history of Asia. Not every scandal or issue has a place in the article but this industry is a closed industry, and therefore those that had a big impact in the shaping of this industry have a place in the article. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 10:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Celebrity fans

I don't see why this should be in an encyclopedia! For one, this is irrelevant, we don't list celebrity fans in the articles of other music genres, either! For two, we all know this is business! People who work or want to work with K-pop artists won't say they are not "fans", it would be pretty bad marketing for their own products and image. This article is starting to turn into some fan club piece of writing. Please keep it encyclopedic, and leave out the stuff that should remain the scope of Allkpop... I would like to remove this section from the article with consensus. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 07:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Won't stop you from removing it. But not sure if we should salvage some content and integrate it with the rest of the article? -A1candidate (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree it can be integrated into the popularity and impact, as the celebrities listed seem to be from outside of Asia. It should have celebs that aren't casually interested in a handful of hits, and it should have ones who, because of K-pop, have notable collaborations with the industry.
  1. ^ "What Is K-pop? (Page 5)". MTV Iggy. Retrieved 2012-03-27.
  2. ^ "The dark side of South Korean pop music". BBC. 2011-06-14. Retrieved 2012-01-06.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference lowered was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference fast music was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Lindvall, Helienne. "Behind the music: What is K-Pop and why are the Swedish getting involved?". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 March 2013. K-Pop is a genre that sounds a bit like the Black Eyed Peas – only in Korean. A few English words are added to create meaningless song titles: Chocolate Love or Hurricane Venus, for example. Sometimes they even make up their own words, like Mirotic {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  6. ^ "Lost in Translation: The Reduced Role of Lyrics in K-pop". Seoulbeats. Retrieved 24 March 2013. A fan can only take so much songs talking of the same topics or nonsensical ones before getting tired of researching up translations altogether, generalizing all K-pop songs as meaningless and lacking in depth.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:K-pop/Archive_1&oldid=1136861998"