Jump to content

Talk:Krystal Jung/Archive 1

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

The M-Wave

Krystal will host a show on Arirang, called The M-Wave. Han Sang-hee: Arirang TV to present global K-pop show, The Korea Times. May 3, 2010. --Dr. Crisp (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Krysz.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Krysz.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Krystal vogue.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Krystal vogue.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • 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.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Remove parts of Variety shows

Nominating to remove extraneous appearances and only including shows where Jung appears as the main cast ie. Kim Yuna's Kiss & Cry, f(x) Hello, f(x) Koala. Jwt987 (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Krystal's birth name: Chrystal Soo Jung

Hello,

According to the California's Birth Index, Krystal's real birth name is Chrystal Soo Jung[1] (instead of Krystal Jung). It also has a birth record of Jessica Jung, her sister, here [2]. The two sisters were born in San Francisco, California.

Since this comes from the government records [compiled by the California Office of Health Information and Research], I think it is the most accurate and is a reliable source. As this is Krystal's Wikipedia biography, I think it is appropriate to have the most accurate information presented [although we would always know her by her widely-known name, Krystal, instead].

Also, there was a scan from Krystal's school yearbook/records which showed her childhood picture and spelled her name as Chrystal Soo Jung. (it is not appropriate to post a link to an image on Wikipedia).

Therefore, I think it would be most appropriate to introduce her birth name on the Wikipedia page as "Chrystal Soo Jung", and then after that, we can refer to her as simply Krystal elsewhere throughout the article.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'll be more than happy to know why.

142.136.42.19 (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Chrystal Soo Jung is her real birthname i saw her name on her childhood picture so that is true. Stephanie.young.hwang (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment request by TerryAlex fulfilled

I have assessed the article as C-class and if anything disagree, just let me know. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 20:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not take out any relevant "negative" information

In regard to the fact that Krystal was being criticized by the public for having an attitude problem, and she did had to apologize once for it (and any other relevant "negative" info), please do not take any of these info out, as they actually were/are facts.

Being from a fan's (or just a regular reader/editor) point of view, it is best to present her information in the most informative way (both good and bad info to stay neutral POV) while NOT putting any damaging effects on her reputation at all. This is not to vandalize her in anyway but just to give an overall clearer image of her as an entertainer and a good insight to her real personality. --TerryAlex (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Another singer

Krystal (American singer) of Me & My Piano is also a singer, so this article should be at Krystal (Korean singer). In ictu oculi (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That page is Krystal Harris now, so there is no need to rename this page. It's fine like this. For the Korean-American singer, it's because her real name (Chrystal) is different than her stage name (Krystal), but for the American singer, Krystal (Harris) is really her real name--TerryAlex (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


Krystal (singer) → Krystal Jung – Per the arguments of other editors presented by Talk:Tiffany Hwang, I think it would be more appropriate to move this page back to Krystal Jung. Her sister is named similarly, and it's the spelling of her real name may be different but the name Krystal Jung can still apply as it is pronounced similarily. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Krystal Jung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Krystal Jung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Nationality

From my understanding, Krystal parents are born in South Korea which essentially makes them South Korean citizen. They moved to San Francisco back in the 90s before Krystal was born. According to South Korean nationality law, quoted "Individuals automatically receive South Korean nationality at birth if at least one parent is a South Korean national, whether they are born within the Republic of Korea or overseas. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 09:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: I agree that she holds dual citizenship, as she often uses her South Korean passport at the airports. But I am not sure if "Korean-American" in the nationality section is clarifying. Should not it be better "United States, South Korea"? Cisdine (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@Cisdine: Nope, Korean-American is the nationality and nobody uses United States, South Korea (this is more like specifying the country rather than nationality). If you wikilink it which is not recommended as per WP:MOS, the Korean is link to South Korea article (can also be linked to Koreans article or North Korea article if the person is from the country which in this instance isn't) and the American is linked to Americans article. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 00:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Dual citizenship

2804:EBC:9033:D900:5473:37F6:13C5:8E4F removed the claim that Jung has South Korean citizenship from this article's infobox on the basis that South Korea doesn't allow dual citizenship. I restored it because it was stated in the body (She holds dual citizenship in the United States and South Korea.) with a citation to an article by the SCMP (a reliable source) that supports the claim (quote: She holds dual citizenship of both South Korea and the US.). Furthermore, Wikipedia's articles on Multiple citizenship § Complex laws on dual citizenship and South Korean nationality law § Acquisition and loss show that South Korea does allow dual citizenship (under certain conditions). jlwoodwa (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

To say that "South Korea doesn't allow dual citizenship" is just factually untrue on IP's part. Since we have a WP:RS for South Korean citizenship then we should include it.
That same IP also made the same edit on Jessica Jung, however it doesn't appear that Jessica's alleged Korean citizenship was supported by any reliable sources in the previous revision, so I've left their edits as-is unless a reliable source for citizenship can be found. RachelTensions (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
However I'd argue that the wording of the first sentence should be changed from "Korean-American" to" South Korean and American". The term "Korean-American" refers to Americans that are of Korean ethnicity (which Jung is); but we're specifically referring to nationality, not ethnicity. RachelTensions (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
The term Korean-American can mean either or both things. It's not just ethnicity. The term is appropriate here. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead

@Binksternet the edit that you reverted re: the lead sentence was made to bring this article in line with the guideline for presenting dual citizenship in the lead sentence per the "Nationality" section of WP:MOSBIO.

"Korean-American" is ambiguous and could be used to describe somebody that holds American citizenship and is of Korean ethnicity. The fact that this very article links to Korean Americans, the article for Americans of Korean ethnicity, when referencing Jung's South Korean nationality, underscores this.

Is there any reason that this article should WP:Ignore all rules and go against the guidelines set out in Wikipedia's manual of style for describing dual citizenship in the lead sentence for biographical articles? RachelTensions (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI I've opened a general discussion on the topic here RachelTensions (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@Paper9oll I'm not going to engage in an edit war with someone Wikipedia:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING over following the manual of style guideline. There has been no discussion other than "no one ever disputed it before" regarding the wording of the lead sentence, nor has there been any consensus that the manual of style should be ignored.
So what is the reason we're so hellbent on reverting every effort to bring this into alignment with proper MOS guidelines? RachelTensions (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
You could jolly well could engage in edit war if you want to because the current lead is the result of "consensus" after edit warring years ago. I had also gone ahead to delink "Korean-American" from Korean Americans since this wasn't even mentioned at target. A downright ignoring "consensus" by claiming to be to BOLD is basically also STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING or whatever essay. The term "Korean-American" implies that she either [South] Korean or American without conclusive while your claimed BOLD changes to aligned with MOS guidelines is implying that she has both [South] Korean and American citizenship, see the differences? I don't think that your "no consensus" claim here is valid since this was already disputed prior and @Binksternet also stated "The term Korean-American can mean either or both things. It's not just ethnicity. The term is appropriate here". I also don't see why the existing IAR should be forgo for the broken (not a "catch-all") MOS solution, a different middleground should be proposed instead. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Looking through 12 years of archived discussion on this talk page there has been no discussion on the topic other than when you seemingly implemented it. At the time the ambiguity of the wording "Korean-American" was brought up as well and it was essentially shot down with "Nope." and no further discussion ever happened.
It's my understanding that guidelines should be followed unless there's a good reason to ignore them; I've been racking my brain trying to think of a good reason to keep an the ambiguous "Korean-American" instead of the more clear & unambiguous wording as laid out in the manual of style, but I just can't think of one.
The term "Korean-American" implies that she either [South] Korean or American without conclusive while your claimed BOLD changes to aligned with MOS guidelines is implying that she has both [South] Korean and American citizenship, see the differences?
So you're admit that the term "Korean-American" is ambiguous and could mean either she's of South Korean and American nationality, or that she's American of Korean descent. Yes, both are true in this case.
your claimed BOLD changes to aligned with MOS guidelines is implying that she has both [South] Korean and American citizenship
My changes aren't implying anything; they're meant to be clear, concise, and unambiguous. By writing "Korean-American", we're leaving the onus on the reader to figure out whether we mean "Korean-American" ethnicity, or "Korean-American" citizenship, or both. This might be clear to someone who knows that (per the MOS) we don't include ethnicity in the lead sentence, but to a layperson it could be seen either way.
Over in our discussion here you mentioned you were unfamiliar with the way "Korean-American" could be interpreted in the United States. I, and a few other people along the way, who are familiar with its possible interpretations in the Western world, have stated that it could mean both to a Western reader. So why leave it ambiguous? RachelTensions (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I didn't even stated that "consensus" came from discussion and "consensus" doesn't has to come from discussion. I also didn't implied that "the term "Korean-American" is ambiguous", you misinterpret my words as usual. I also didn't implied that I was "unfamiliar with the way "Korean-American" could be interpreted in the United States", it was saying that it was an possibility because you gave some random USA subjects hence also Hyphenated American style guides is a thing in the States anyway so it basically down to the writer to write it however they and their news company preferred it their product (news articles) to be written in. Regardless, if that's how you want to kept misinterpreting my words then so be it, you want to keep on arguging or you want a middleground to solve that so-called proclaimed "ambiguous"? And no, that middleground shouldn't and/or mustn't be the broken (not a "catch-all") MOS that you kept insisting on otherwise it won't be called middleground but merry-go-round. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
it was saying that it was an possibility because you gave some random USA subjects hence also Hyphenated American style guides is a thing in the States anyway so it basically down to the writer to write it however they and their news company preferred it their product (news articles) to be written in.
If the fact that either interpretation is a "possibility" based on any given news org's own manuals of style doesn't say "ambiguous" then I'm not sure what does.
Anyway, here are some featured articles for dual-citizens that follow the MOS guideline that you keep stating is "broken": Angela Lansbury, Christopher Nolan, John Oliver
What do you propose as a middleground?
If you wish we could request an opinion from an uninvolved third party at WP:3O RachelTensions (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Once again, you misinterpreted my reply, I did specifically said that it's broken because it doesn't "catch-all" hence you kept on emphasising that WP:OTHERCONTENT including FA is written as such doesn't solve the "catch-all" concerns. I'm not sure, what is the alternative other than resolving the ambiguity if that's even a thing (apparently to selective audience, it's) but doing wikilink each term without any rewrite but even than, wikilinking also doesn't means that target may mentioned such i.e. where the whole dispute and selective interpretation i.e. wikilinking to Korean Americans started from and/or interpretating Korean Americans as ethicity started from. Otherwise, expand Korean Americans for such scenario i.e. not just about ethnicity. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
So just so we're clear, what is the exact rationale you're getting at for not just following the MOS guidelines as written? Like, what harm would come to the article if we used "South Korean and American" in the lead instead of "Korean-American"? RachelTensions (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Because it's implying that the subject has confirmed legal status whereas "Korean-American" doesn't confirmed their legal status which is also why it wasn't written as "[South] Korean-American" even if North Korea exists. A Korean person born in France might have Korean nationality, even if they don't hold French citizenship. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
So I guess the comparison is that "Korean-American" could be ambiguous with ethnicity, and "South Korean and American" could be ambiguous with citizenship?
like I suggested before, if you're open to it, we could get a third opinion from WP:3O RachelTensions (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Either way, South Korea is not a country that has any forms of nationality that do not receive full citizenship rights per Nationality#Nationality in context
If she is a South Korean national, she is a South Korean citizen. RachelTensions (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I would like to hear more from other editors before going 3O. Pinging active K-pop topic related editors @DragonFury, @Evaders99, @Nkon21, @Btspurplegalaxy, @Windborne Rider for their thoughts on changing "Korean-American" or "Korean-x" to "South Korean and American" or "South Korean and x" on this discussion and also see WikiProject Korea for the related addon discussion that spin off from this discussion. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
For the pinged people (and anyone else): please see here for the beginning of this discussion and the original explanation and rationale for the changes. RachelTensions (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
There is no current country called Korea but it is an ethnicity that covers the people of both North Korea and South Korea. Korean-American is purely an ethnicity tag and doesn't belong per MOS:ETHNICITY. The only way to correctly state this person's dual nationality is "American and South Korean". This applies to every modern bio article where Korea(n) without a "North" or "South" specified. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Geraldo Perez. "American and South Korean" is more appropriate. seefooddiet (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if your read the entire discussion but anyway, what I'm concerned about using "American and South Korean" here is that we're implying that she has "confirmed" legal status of American citizenship and also South Korean citizenship. Even if you were to argue that she is born in America hence she is considered as American and/or she inherit South Korean citizenship because her parents is South Korean or vice versa, there is no proper and actual of determining the legality status. And also, I'm not confusing it as ethnicity tag or term or whatever and I'm not saying IAR on ETHNICITY (not sure why on earth MOS:ETHNICITY redirect there but anyway, that's not the point) which I know that "Korean-American" applies as well, in addition to referring to nationality. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier, there's no difference between South Korean nationality and South Korean citizenship: South Korea is not a country that confers citizenship rights to only certain forms of nationality. If the subject is a South Korean national, she is a South Korean citizen. See: Nationality#Nationality in context, Citizenship of South Korea#Nationality Law
If your argument is that we're not sure of her status then references to her "Korean" nationality should be removed from the article entirely, because if we're not sure of her citizenship then, by extension, we're not sure of her Korean nationality. RachelTensions (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I know that before this discussion already but did it and/or does it resolves the concerns. So far you kept on preaching this and that which I deemed as "merry-go-round". In fact, the same can be said for American citizenship also while Birthright citizenship in the United States, that's a thing called "voluntarily give up". Also, since you're so in loved with following MOS:NATIONALITY, do you happened to know that MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES exists, and no this isn't an essay. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Sure, MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES absolutely exists. So if you're so opposed using to the guideline at WP:NATIONALITY, then an acceptable compromise would be to use the term "South Korean-American" because it is less ambiguous with the ethnicity and "South Korean" is the proper adjectival to describe a South Korean national.
FWIW, the article already states: "She holds dual citizenship in the United States and South Korea." per this source. RachelTensions (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm cool with the compromise. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Great. I will make the change unless someone else wishes to chip into the discussion. Can we also agree on Jessica Jung?
We can take the discussion for a more project-wide correction of all similar articles back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Wording of dual citizenship in lead sentences (unless they have a special circumstance or local consensus for wording it otherwise). RachelTensions (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, also cool with Jessica. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez @Seefooddiet @Binksternet would using "South Korean-American" instead of "Korean-American" or "American and South Korean" be an acceptable compromise to you?
And @DragonFury; I believe we disagreed on Jessica Jung and Sunny (singer) as well. RachelTensions (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I usually stay out of these discussions and go with the resulting consensus since just reading all of the above already does my head in, but since I was specifically prompted; my personal opinion is that the lead should preferably carry the confirmed nationalities of the subject. A good example of this is John Oliver; British by birth, and (confirmed) naturalized American by choice, he is British and American. However, if dual nationality is not conclusively confirmedn, and the ethnicity of the subject is relevant to their notability, then using the double-barreled style of Korean-American would be my preferred go-to. So in the case of Jessica Jung, her American nationality is confirmed, but I'm not sure about her Korean nationality, so "Korean-American" should be used until the latter can be confirmed. This largely my personal opinion, I think the MOS on this are woefully inadequate to properly cover the matter at hand. And to add; every article I looked at for research uses a different style. Tiffany Young: "American singer-songwriter of Korean descent"; Jay Kim: "Korean-American politician"; Young Kim: "South Korean-born American politician and businesswoman"; Michelle Steel: "American politician".DragonFury (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I think what you're bringing up is a whole different can of worms that goes further than the way their lead sentence is worded.
I believe what you're referring to is when we can "assume" someone's nationality/citizenship from deduction based the laws of the involved countries, which is what we've done at Jessica Jung and Sunny (singer), and also why Young Kim is worded the way it is (because per South Korean nationality law, "South Koreans residing abroad who voluntarily acquire a foreign nationality automatically have their ROK citizenship revoked").
If dual nationality is not conclusively confirmedn, and the ethnicity of the subject is relevant to their notability, then using the double-barreled style of Korean-American would be my preferred go-to.
If that's the case then referring to someone as "Korean-American" in their lead would still be ambiguous; if we're specifically trying to not imply the possibility of them being a dual citizen because we don't have the sources to back it up, but we want to include reference to their ethnicity because it's relevant to their notability, then the wording should be "XXX (born XXX), is an American singer of Korean descent" (such as what is done at Tiffany Young). RachelTensions (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm also cool with what is done with Tiffany. However, I don't think this applies for Krystal. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes this wouldn't apply for Krystal because we have a source that specifically says she's a dual-citizen. RachelTensions (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Just to add a point to my own previous comment: "South Korean" should never be used to refer to a person's ethnicity, it's a purely a descriptor of citizenship/nationality (same for North Korean). DragonFury (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
No, country1-country2 should never be used. If notable in both countries use country1 and country2. For adjectives the one before the hyphen modifies the second. When order is reversed the meaning changes. Not so when "and" is used which gives equal weight.
Ethnicity is very seldom important to why a person is notable which is why MOS:ETHNICITY says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability". What is important to a person's notability is their nationality and what they accomplished, not who their ancestors were. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I think we should defer to what the MOS says ("country1 and country2"), but "country1-country2" is a fine (although less than ideal) wording if it is presented unambiguously: South Korean-American is relatively unambiguous; a reader could only reasonably infer that we mean they're a citizen of both countries, whereas Korean-American is not unambiguous - a reader could reasonably interpret it it in multiple ways. RachelTensions (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I was pinged here. Regarding the lead for the dual nationality, I am fine with formatting it as American and South Korean. Two other examples are Jeon Somi and Danielle Marsh. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 04:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
So just to summarize where I believe the discussion currently stands:
  • 4 participants in the discussion are supporting using "Country1 and Country2" (ex. American and South Korean)
  • 2 participants in the discussion are supporting using "Country1-Country2" (ex. Korean-American)
Of these two options, currently one person from each "side" have agreed to a compromise between the two options: modifying "Korean-American" to be "South Korean-American".
So, where do we go from here? RachelTensions (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
If majority of editors agree with both countries being listed then I say we can proceed to adding it to the lead. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 00:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Given my extensive argument for one side I don't want to be the one to make the call; I'll leave it to someone less invested. RachelTensions (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I still disagree with the compromise hyphenated form, and I think there is sufficient support for "South Korean and American" or "American and South Korean" to change to that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Also, just as a comment, she's done nothing notable in the US, so generally American wouldn't be listed in the intro or SD as not relevant to notability. Issue for another time and not worth arguing now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I made the change to match what I see is the strongest supported form. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
"South Korean and American" is more eloquent; "South Korean-American" is unwieldly imo. seefooddiet (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I will say I have no strong preference either way, esp if both forms are somewhat ambiguous. MOS:CONTEXTBIO does seem to prefer nationality rather than ethnicity though. It's funny that her nationality being American probably is a stronger case of notability in the Kpop music scene.Evaders99 (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Well I guess we've come to the consensus that "South Korean and American" is most appropriate. The change has already been made on this article; I'm also going to make the change on Jessica Jung and Sunny (singer) unless someone chimes in; those articles are similar situations to this one. RachelTensions (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Krystal_Jung/Archive_1&oldid=1253179413"