Pertaining to this recently added snippet to the career section:
In the same month, the group received criticisms for blackface when a performance revealed the members wearing considerably darker facial makeup for a cover of Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars' "Uptown Funk".[1] An apology was later issued through their Facebook, stating that they were "extremely ignorant of blackface and did not understand the implications of our actions. We will be taking time to understand more about our international fans to ensure this never happens again."[2][3]
There're multiple problems with this snippet, which is why it has been subject to removal by many users:
- The referenced article is wrongly interpreted by the editor. Just by reading the referenced article it's obvious that: it's placed wrongly in the timeline by a whole year, it does not meet the dictionary definition of blackface (that's why the referenced article uses the careful wording 'what many interpreted to be'), the incident was not during a performace and it was not a cover. This means that while the snippet itself has a reference to a reliable published source included, the content of the snippet does not match what is presented in the source material. This means that the above mentioned details were added by the editor themselves and are thus unsourced (and also incorrect).
- As a celebrity scandal that sprung a handful of articles in the English speaking k-pop sphere and went almost completely ignored in the korean sphere and media, I don't see how this is relevant enough to their career to be included alongside major milestones, achievements and album releases otherwise included in the career section.
- Why the snippet has been restored by multiple users despite the blatantly false information is not obvious to me. But according to my experience with this issue, it could be explained by a coordinated troll effort.
Mast321r/195.113.224.147 I am going to try and respond to your concerns about this article, I am going to disregard the third point as it is based on your interpretation of the information as being "blatantly false" and a possible "coordinated troll effort".
Some issues you have raised are that it's placed wrongly in the timeline (easy enough to move without having to delete), the incident was not during a performance (the music video is itself a performance, and according the provided sources was released as part of their concert).
You express concern that "it does not meet the dictionary definition of blackface" and that "the referenced article uses the careful wording 'what many interpreted to be'". You can see that the other two referenced articles (Billboard & Korea Herald) both refer to it as blackface without any such careful wording. So if part of your issue is the "what many interpreted to be" it is easy enough to replace that reference with a clearer one.
Hope this has helped at least partially, I am very tired and doing the best I can to respond in detail. Greyjoy talk 11:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
It was also not a cover, it was a few seconds long snippet in a series of short impersonation skits, with Uptown Funk playing as BGM. This piece of information was incorrectly added by the editor and is thus unsourced, alongside the other incorrect information. I don't see why it is my duty to correct this information, and if I don't, have the incorrect and potentially libelious information without a valid source stay included indefinitely. This should be a burden of the person who originally added this information. I've mentioned this in your talk page, but to also include it in this discussion, according to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The snippet in its current form is not properly supported by a reliable source.
There is also the second concern I've expressed, about why this incident is relevant enough to be included in the career section. Thank you for the quick responses. Mast321r (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
It is easy enough to change "cover" to "parody" to match the provided references, I am happy enough to do that if you feel that it isn't your duty. The references provided are reliable published sources. If your issue is with the wording that is something that we can correct, deleting the chunk of references information is not the way to address it. Your concern on if the event is notable enough to be included is certainly something to be discussed. An editor was bold and removed it, this removal was then challenged by another editor who reverted it. At this point the correct approach is discussion here on the talk page, not removal of the information. From what I can see this was an event which received enough coverage and backlash to be mentioned in the article, others may disagree, which is why it is important for there to be time for this to be discussed. Greyjoy talk 11:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is not overly difficult to correct and properly source. I am just confused as to why the correct course of action is to leave the incorrect information up and then discuss. It's not just wording, the snippet implies they performed an 'Uptown Funk' cover in blackface, which is worsening the incident tenfold and thus could be considered defamatory. It seems to go against Wikipedia guidelines. But I suppose I'm just arguing a principle now.
As to if this notable enough to be included in the career section. I don't think an incident that spawned a handful of English articles, with almost no footprint in Korea is relevant enough to the career of an Korean artist to be included in this section. Cultural mishaps like these happen very often in k-pop and are not commonplace to be included on Wikipedia pages as a major piece of information. The other content in that section is discussing major milestones and album releases, and then there is a tabloid-like mention of a celebrity scandal that had no measurable effect on their success or overall career. Mast321r (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
If the snippet is implying that they performed a cover then the issue is wording, as it could be reworded to more accurately explain that it was a parody as part of a series of skits (as I have just done). The reason that I advised leaving it up to discuss is because it is properly referenced and the primary issues seems to be notability/how it is written. This is not cause for deleting the section. This is cause to either correctly word it or, if that is not something you wish to do, ask that someone else do. Greyjoy talk 12:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi AhnSoonKyung, I apologise for bothering you but would you like to give a comment on this? Thanks, Heolkpop (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I have corrected the information and provided more accurate sources. Now I would like to continue with the discussion on notability. Mast321r (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with GreyJoy. It seems the main issue was just the timing of the event and its wording, both which have been addressed. Criticisms and controversies are often included within celebrities' pages. Big Bang's page discusses cultural appropriation, Beyonce's also talks about blackface, while BTS focuses on sexism in their lyrics, etc. The two former articles are also GA. The reason why this did not receive coverage in their native language is perhaps because blackface is a topic that reporters in the United States cover more due to its history with slavery and colonialism, which is why K-pop and its appropriation of hip hop culture is often a topic of critique in the United States and Mamamoo's performance is included within these critiques as examples. Mamamoo themselves addressed the topic, similar to all the other artists addressing their criticisms. They acknowledged it, released an apology statement, and moved on with their career. I'm confused as to why folks see the topic as irrelevant when it gained enough criticisms for the group to release an official statement. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Personal opinion: I also wanted to address the point of multiple users deleting the information: most of them are not registered users, and the two who are registered are fairly new/Mamamoo's war edit have been their only contributions. Meanwhile, editors who reverted the deleted materials are the ones who have been editing for a while, so I would trust their judgement better than the ones who keep reverting it anonymously or are just starting out. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
All your examples are short comments in appropriate contexts: mention of criticisms of BTS' misogynistic lyrics is a short remark in their Artistry section in a paragraph discussing lyrics. Big Bang's cultural appropriation issue is a short comment in a section discussing their fashion. Mentioning a celebrity scandal that barely even registered in the Korean media sphere and thus had no measurable impact on their success or career seems irrelevant in the career section, which is usually dedicated to major events, milestones and achievements. As for "releasing an official statement" being the litmus test for notability, they also released an official statement/apology when one of the members forgot to label her VLive broadcast as containing drinking and that got picked up by tabloids − should that also be included as a notable point in their career? I don't think that's a relevant argument. If Wikipedia is supposed to be written from an American POV, then this could possibly be considered notable. From a global and Korean POV, this is hardly notable. I hope you see my point.
- As for the users removing the snippet, it was probably fans who knew that the information was incorrect and hence felt compelled to remove it. Editors obviously couldn't know that without deeper investigation and so this back and forth situation resulted. But it seems that we've resolved that now with my edit. Mast321r (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- But this criticism is also a short comment. It's not its own section. Sometimes you just need to add more context and the others did not require as much. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
You didn't address my point. It's not about the length, it's about relevancy in given context. Discussing an issue with lyrics in an Artistry section in a paragraph already discussing lyrics makes sense. Discussing cultural appropriation of a fashion style in a section already discussing their fashion makes sense. Picking and including one scandal which happened in the American fringe of the k-pop fandom that had no measurable impact on their overall success or career does not make much sense in the career section, but I've already explained that point. Mast321r (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- You are going in circle; your points have already been addressed by GreyJoy yet you refuse to listen. To address your points: 1) it is relevant to their CAREER, which is why it was included in the CAREER section & also why other competent editors felt the need to keep it despite removals from random IP addresses or editors who have no experience editing, 2) plenty of other Wikipedia articles have included controversies that have no measurable impact on their overall success or career, including articles from American sources. All three articles I used as examples can speak for that. With that being said, I refuse to go into further debate with you since the consensus is to keep it. Since you are a new editor, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia. This thread is closed. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I was just restating my point because you were ignoring it. Thank you for addressing it now. I explained why your examples are not comparable. As for the ad hominem, I know Wikipedia very well, thank you. Not being active on this account does not make my points invalid. I don't know what gives you the authority to "close this thread" and announce consensus in your favor. But if the consensus is that the Wikipedia policy is to allow flooding with inconsquential tabloid information, then so be it.
Maybe someone more senior can chip in and put this discussion to rest? Thank you. Mast321r (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
On a second thought, while I still think the incident is not notable with regards to their career, after seeing all the misinformation in many of the supposedly reputable sources, maybe keeping the corrected version in will at least bring some truth to the world. I'm also tired, so I'm pulling my horse from the race. As long as this doesn't open the flood gates to spam the article with every celebrity "scandal" that has spawned a few tabloid articles. Mast321r (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I am new here but I was hoping to give my two cents on this issue. The mass deletes of the bit in question are most likely from fans who felt that the controversy should not be included in Mamamoo's career page. Whilst it was part of their career, and they have acknowldged and apologized multiple times for their mistake, many may have felt that the wording was misleading initially. Further, there is an issue of whether other artist's problematic pasts were tackled on their respective wikipedia pages. If we were to keep the page as is, it sets a precedent for us to follow and thus, we should update other idols' pages as well.
From your previous examples, GD and BTS was noted. However, their past actions were not as highlighted as compared to Mamamoo's. GD has done multiple instances of Blackface and other cultural appropiration, with no apology whatsoever to the public. Apink Bomi did that as well, but that was not included in their pages. Moreover, many kpop groups have appropriated other cultures. For example, Black Pink's Jennie used a Bindhi for their recent concept photo.
Kpop fandoms are very passionate about their idols, it is highly likely that keeping this bit in the Mamamoo page will trigger the fans to mass complain and/or email to Wikipedia. If we were to follow through with the set precedent and update for all kpop groups, their fans will most likely do the same. This will open the floodgates for a whole mess, I feel.
If that is the case, would it not be better to simply remove this portion? Jenmoo (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
So if this is important info all kpop acts should have an update on pages whoever did this one better make it work I expect the past to be brought to the light thank you Bovie94 (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there everybody.
Regarding the whole of this conversation, I think the worry expressed by Mamamoo fans is not particularly that such info would ruin their idols' career. Anyone who digs a bit would find out about the issue eventually, and the apologies that have been made. I think what they fear is just that this would prevent potential listeners to actually just give the group a try, and/or join the fandom, and thus, the group to expand, outside of South Korea or East Asia. As I understand, the fandom has recently managed to bring a more global attention to this particular group, whose career has indeed been affected by the issue (regarding international fans). Wikipedia is most likely to be the first thing people who want to know about something they have just discovered will look at. Usually, most fans learn about their idols' controversies directly from the fandom, and do their own research to decide if yes or no they can still show support to a group who, sorry for my language, but I cannot think of anything else, "messed up".
This kind of controversy is frequent in K-pop, and needs to be underlined. Therefore, if we do it for one group, we need to do it for all, even if it has not affected their career in a similar way. There is enough reliable material online to do it. Or else, we do not do it at all. Sure, Mamamoo is probably the only group for whom such controversy has had such an impact on their career, for the random reason that they did not have as many supporters as the others and that it blew up on social media (when most groups usually get away without trouble and without apologies, relying on their reputation), but if the goal is to provide educative information (which I think is also a purpose Wikipedia could have), notably on K-pop, other groups should be commented upon.
Or maybe Wikipedia could have a page dedicated to the topic actually, I think this would be a useful piece of information.
I don't know. OddlyMaskedBoo (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Whether the information is negative or detracts listeners is not of particular interest to Wikipedia, so that argument won't likely fly. I suggest you read the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography policy and WP:COI. I don't know where you got the impression that this scandal affected their career considerably. I know this is English wikipedia and Americans like to feel in the center of things, but we're writing about a Korean group and from a global point of view the scandal wasn't very relevant. There have been many scandals in k-pop that actually affected careers considerably and those almost always came from domestic impact. But we already had a "discussion" on notability (which got shut down by the person who added it in the first place on the basis of seniority and weak arguments).
This is likely here to stay. It is silly and not common in other groups' articles (the examples given before are not comparable – and one actually got edited out recently), but it's hard to get an actual discussion going here. And all the fans coming here with no Wikipedia experience and irrelevant arguments definitely don't help. Mast321r (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I would like to talk about source which was used on Mamamoo's scandal. I don't think Koreaboo is the credible one. Koreaboo shares possible dating scandals, rumors and other misinformations as the facts. They write articles how someone was spotted somewhere etc. They are not newsletter website. After explanation they will not remove these articles or apologise for misinformations. They translate korean articles from korean websites which aren't newsletters for example Nate and these websites aren't trustful. How can be source credible when it shares gossips and use it as clickbaits? On the same princip work Soompi and Allkpop. Also, why isn't here full apology? Billboard shared full apology but on Mamamoo's wikipedia page is just a little part and out of the context. For such a sensitive topic would be better full explenation and apology from Mamamoo. Teerkaa (talk) 8:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
It already takes up a lot of space. The article has to be balanced. The full apology is referenced right next to it if anyone is curious. For your first point, the low quality of English k-pop sources is sadly almost universal. Mast3r (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, to anyone feeling the article is imbalanced because the incident wasn't very notable from a global perspective – compared to rest of the content in the career section – a way to help it is to expand the section to include more information other than just a listing of major milestones. Mast3r (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Abelmoschus Esculentus: Thanks, I'm aware of that. I meant notable more as in "worthy of attention or notice; remarkable", as it was previously being used in the discussion I'm addressing, not the Wikipedia usage of the word. Mast3r (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Now what about source The Korea Herald? They are newsletter but it is only korean newsletter which informed about this issue in english. Their article is weirdly written(?). The point is: in their article they wrote "blackface" in quotation marks which is can be expressed as an irony and blackface is really sensitive topic for being disparage like this. Here on wikipedia you don't have it in quotation marks not even once. They didn't put quotation marks to Mamamoo's apology where they talk about blackface (well, it's their citation). Someone who put "blackface" to their written article is questionable. It's the same as if someone would wrote: The man "killed" woman or oh, you are really tooooo "funny". They seem to be questioning word blackface and its value. The bad wording can change meaning of the word. So, is The Korea Herald good source to be used? Teerkaa (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for my english. I see, you don't understand me. Mamamoo's wikipedia page is well written. Wording is ok. My point was: I doubt The Korea Herald's article because they used blackface in quotation marks in the title of their article and I want delete them as one of the sources. The use of the quotation marks doubts their meaning of the value of the word. As I said it could sounds for someone they don't take it seriously because quotation marks can be used as an irony. So it looks they make fun of the word. Quotation marks can be used for many reasons and irony is one of the options. Teerkaa (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Teerkaa: When you cite a source, you do not cite it based on the title alone, which in this case you seems to be doing so. You cite by looking and reading through the content of the source. If you read up The Korea Herald's article, nowhere does it wrote blackface in quotation marks. The blackface at the last paragraph is used as an emphasis, rather than to express it as an irony. Your analogy is flawed and nowhere the same. Furthermore, The Korea Herald is one of the reliable sources as per WP:KO/RS. Heolkpop (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Heolkpop: I didn't mean their second use of word blackface in last paraghraph, It's obviously used as emphasis and not in ironic meaning. I meant in their title of the whole article where is written: Mamamoo apologizes for ‘blackface’ controversy - are USED QUOTATION MARKS. Someone could likened it to the similar meaning of the phrase like: Yeah, you are 'funny' (where is obviously an irony). One of their latest articles is also titled : HyunA opts for ‘honest’ route, confirming relationship with E’Dawn and it sounds same like they disparage word honest. To the circumstances she wasn't honest at all and that's why they put it in quotation marks as an irony. Teerkaa (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Teerkaa: As I said again, you do not judge a source by its title alone. Heolkpop (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Heolkpop: Well, the title is the part of the article, isn't it? Author decides about the title from some criterias and the title is important part of the whole article. For example: Title should catche your attention. If someone decides to put quotation marks for word like blackface it is questionable or isn't it? Billboard's article is written perfectly. I don't try doubt credibility The Korea Herald website. They are newsletter and they are relieble. I am pointing out specificaly about this written article. The author of this article Yoon Min-sik puts quotation marks in his/her titles for specific reasons: if there is(are) name(s) of book, song, restarurant etc., if is it whole citation of someone or on words where she/he put down meaning/importance/value of the word (honest, loser, swag). Basically, take it's importance with reserve. Blackface isn't word which you should put down of its importance with quotation marks. If someone writes misleading title it is questionable and obviously if this person has princip where to put quotation marks you will come to conclusion he/she take down value of the word blackface in the title of the article.Teerkaa (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Teerkaa: I doubt the author is even trying to put down its importance. It is very easy to assume things, isn't it? As you said, there are many reasons to use quotation marks, however out of all those reasons, why do you pick only "irony" for this? Why can't it be an emphasis just like the one in the source's last paragraph? Also, the Hyuna article which you mentioned is not even written by the same author of the source. Heolkpop (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Heolkpop: Yes, Hyuna's article isn't from the same author but it doesn't change the fact that this author has specific using of quotation marks. Blackface isn't name /title of something or isn't full citated sentence. As you said it is very easy to assume things. There isn't many options, in title isn't: They said and quotation marks with given word or title of something. So left 2 options: epression of so-called or irony. On wikipedia page you don't use blackface in quotation marks, you give it the value as a word and give to it an importance. Only blackface in quotation marks you use is with an adjective.(So this is so-called option(?), it is hurtful meaning with these adjectives and changes meaning of the word). You doubt it and I doubt it. It is really subjective view but for sure it is questionable of a true meaning of blackface in quotation marks in this title of the article. If is it so, wouldn't be better delete this source? We aren't sure how author meant it but for sure it is questionable. Teerkaa (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Teerkaa: I don't find it questionable. And nope, that is not how you want a source to get removed. The content of the source plays a bigger role in this kind of decision. Heolkpop (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Heolkpop: I am sorry but how can someone say word as nope (why informal all of the sudden when we aren't friends) and then talk about article with posibility of degrading word blackface in the title of the article. The contenct is alright but in the title of your amazing source is really qustionable quotation marks about such a sensiteve word as a blackface. You didn't disprove the princip of the author's style of putting quotation marks. She/he really uses it the same way. You don't put blackface in quotation marks on your wikipedia page too. So basically you are deciding if is good or not but you are obviously subjecive about this topic. I don't know if is it your source or why you don't see blackface in quotation marks as possibility of authors decrasing value of the word. You wrote about blackface incident and how Mamamoo apologised but then as one of the sources you put article with questionable title. How can someone prefer content of source and ignore title of the article. The title can give different meaning of the word. I assume that you don't know about this topic from the first hand. Teerkaa (talk) 18:OO, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Teerkaa: If you are still doubting, ask the senior editors here. Indeed, it is my decision not to remove the source. However, you have to remember that this is Wikipedia and anyone can edit. Heolkpop (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Teerkaa: I've skimmed through the discussion you've had here, and it seems that an important point has been missed, which may not be obvious to you as a non-native English speaker. Words are usually put in between quotation marks by news reports to demonstrate that the report is quoting others. It doesn't mean they're using it ironically; it means that news organisations have to be very careful what they do and don't say, because they can open themselves to being sued. It's common practice because it allows them to future-proof their reports by showing that the news agency isn't making a judgement, but that they're reporting other people's judgements. The current wording in the article "what many percieved [sic] as blackface" reflects this perfectly. Hope that helps. Marianna251TALK 18:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
