This is an archive of past discussions about NewJeans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Should "Ditto" and "New Jeans" be considered bsides or singles? While both have only been described by ADOR as tracks, I'm not sure if they can be considered as such since they have been/will be released on streaming platforms before the album. In particular for "Ditto", some sources, mostly Korean, describe it only as a track (The Korea HeraldKorea JoongAng Daily, The Korea Times), while other sources call it a single (Billboard, Teen Vogue). "Ditto" is also not marked as a single on Melon. Personally, I think both should be considered promotional singles despite the marketing but I wanted to ask here in case there's a guideline/consensus I'm not aware of and to get more opinions. Poirot09 (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@Nkon21 Agreed for "Ditto", but I think that "New Jeans", which right now is not under singles, should be included as a bside or a promotional single, since all sources (The Korea Herald, NME) have made a clear distinction between the three singles from Get Up – "Super Shy", "Cool with You" and "ETA" – and the track. It will be released with "Super Shy", so it might be considered a bside in a single release, and it has been promoted mostly as a collaboration with The Powerpuff Girls brand. Poirot09 (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes, I meant that "Super Shy", "Cool with You" and "ETA" along with "Ditto" should remain as singles, while "New Jeans" should be classified as a b-side (listed under "other charted songs" if it charts). Just because it has a MV doesn't mean it's a single of any sort. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk17:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
South Korean descriptor
Is the descriptor "South Korean" accurate? ADOR and 3 members are South Korean, but Hanni and Danielle are Australian. Danielle has one Korean parent. Hanni has Vietnamese parents. For the time being, I am moving the descriptor to ADOR. Travelmite (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@Travelmite Yes it's accurate, "South Korean" refers to the group's origins not referring to the members' origins, this is consistent with other South Korean groups (regardless of male/female/combined) unless WP:RSes otherwise and/or with WP:CONSENSUS exception. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)16:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This does not follow standard use of language and is misleading. A group is a collection of people. A group of workers from various countries who form up in Korea is not called a Korean group of workers. Travelmite (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@Travelmite Not sure where you gotten this misconception. However, if you're unhappy with how the convention are, then go to WT:KO to gain WP:CONSENSUS instead since this isn't the only South Korean's group (regardless of male/female/combined) article following the convention. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)10:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@Travelmite I'm not going to argue with you, WT:KO is your option only available for South Korean-related groups in which this group is regardless of whatever misconception you had in your mind. In which, you don't have any WP:CONSENSUS to change at this point of time, continuing doing so despite objection will be considered as signs of disruptive editing. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)10:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Please do not continue Wikipedia:Edit_warring and repeated revert as it is considered disruptive. To describe a group from two countries as being from one country is obviously misleading. There is no WP:CONSENSUS for doing this on WP:KO or anywhere else. If, I am incorrect about this, please link below where the consensus was made. Your concern that people should know the group was formed in South Korea is addressed by stating that the group was formed in South Korea. If your only objection that you don't understand, then please take the time do so. Travelmite (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid to point out that User:Paper9oll has made three reverts within 24 hours, which is WP:edit warring. You are best advised to undo the third revert. If you are calling people now, after the fact, there was no original consensus to rely upon. Calling specific people knowing they'll support your view is Wikipedia:Canvassing. Obviously most K-pop groups are South Korean groups, but some groups have people from other countries. They say a group is South Korean, is to say they are all South Korean. Travelmite (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@Travelmite Maybe you should read 3RR again, you're free to proceed with 4RR and above, I'm going to drink coffee instead. And also, pinging other editors is called WP:SEEKHELP 🤦♂️. And to reiterate, you don't have any consensus to change as of now. And to give few examples, if we're following your misconception logic by going against the convention, then other groups for example active ones like (G)I-dle, Got7, NCT, WJSN, Seventeen, Twice, Kep1er, Aespa, Treasure, Everglow, Le Sserafim, Blackpink, Secret Number, and many more should also be changed which good luck with that. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)11:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
It's not my logic. If those other groups are South Korean, then perhaps it is because the people in them are South Koreans. Hanni is not South Korean by ethnicity, birth nor nationality. To make the implication she is Korean, just to avoid writing a more accurately phrased opening, does not make sense. Travelmite (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@Travelmite Clearly stated that you don't have consensus to change in which me and Lightoil (via WP:SEEKHELP ping) had objected to it above and despite that you boldly proceed with 4RR (wow ... you impress me) with this diff which clearly shows that you're exhibiting signs of disruptive editing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The only foreign members in NewJeans is Hanni Danielle (instead of Hanni) in which the same applies for the examples I provided above which consists of either 1 to 3 foreign members (with exception for NCT), this clearly shows that your argument make zero sense as NewJeans consists of 4 South Korean-born members out of the total 5 members in which member's origins doesn't matters here as the convention i.e. the examples provided above is based on the group's origins ... maybe you should go disruptively change the origin in the Infobox also based on your "it's not my logic". —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)11:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I thank you for allowing a discussion of the article and what is best for the reader. You may not be aware that Hanni Pham (or Phạm Ngọc Hân) was born in Melbourne and her parents are from Vietnam (see [1]. Danielle Marsh's parents are from South Korea and Australia. Yes, the others three members are from South Korea. None of this is included in the article. I'm afraid it is too easy to conclude that NewJeans has 4 South Koreans or all South Korean, so I hope you now understand my genuine concern. Travelmite (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@Travelmite My stance remains the same as above. I'm not going to reply further (unless necessary with ambiguity applies) as I had already said whatever I wanted to say. As of this reply, there are no consensus to change the convention here and also followed by the 13 examples I provided above as far I'm aware of. Adiós! —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)12:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
It's is quite simple. If the group was formed by a South Korean company in South Korea, then the group is South Korean. It doesn't matter if the members have different ethnicities; basically 50% of all K-pop groups have at least 1 foreign member. You have no consensus to make this sort of change. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk12:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The 50% figure is entirely incorrect. Of course, it matters. If a music group was formed in South Korea then that is what should be written. Equally, a group of South Koreans can form anywhere and remain South Korean. Since the above responses are a result of WP:Canvassing, I have taken this question to WikiProject Music: (see [2]) Travelmite (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The exact amount is not important—the point is that there is a large number of groups in the K-pop industry that have foreign members and it would not make sense to remove "South Korean group" on each of their articles just because there is a "non-Korean" member for reasons already highlighted. For your information, pinging editors who frequently contribute to the article your discussing is not a violation of WP:CANVASSING. Instead, I suggest you keep an eye on WP:FORUMSHOPPING. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk14:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Paper9oll was openly canvassing by saying "Pinging other active editors contributing to South Korean-related articles." In other words, he pinged those editors mostly likely to support the notion that everything under the K-pop banner should be described as South Korean. Travelmite (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I came across this discussion at WT:MUSIC. I searched for groups and bands not based in South Korea with international members and found no consistency between these articles. The Band, Stereolab, and Fleetwood Mac use hyphenated nationalities, while Galaxie 500, Can, The Velvet Underground use a single nationality. Personally, the use of "South Korean" seems fine to me. Even the English-language edition of Yonhap News refers to them as a South Korean group [3]. I'm not seeing a particularly strong case against the status quo. ✗plicit13:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. All the members of Galaxie 500 are individually described as American. The introduction to Can makes clear the group used vocalists from different countries. So 5 examples of accurate introductions against one The Velvet Underground which arguably could mention one founding member was Welsh. I didn't insert a hyphenated nationality. I changed "South Korean group" to "group formed in South Korea", because that does not imply every member is South Korean. Which is more accurate? Travelmite (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The group was formed in South Korea and reliable sources consider them a South Korean group, so I'd say the descriptor is accurate. If needed, specifics about the members' origins could be included in the pre-debut section for now. Poirot09 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources, such as Yonhap News Agency, write "The five-piece multinational group debuted Monday under the label ADOR" [4]. The Korea Herald says "the multinational group was brought together by Ador’s CEO" [5]. So, the argument that reliable sources consider them a South Korean group is not valid. Keep in mind, this is arguing against an edit which is indisputably accurate, in favour of one which is creating confusion. We already see in the comments above an editor incorrectly believing 4 of the 5 members are South Korean, and someone else believing that 50% of K-pop groups have foreign members. The phrase "formed in South Korea" is not inaccurate, so I suspect the underlying issue is WP:OWN. Since the primary objective is ensuring the reader is not mislead, and that the multinational formation of the group is being reverted, I will take the opportunity to insert information in the pre-debut section as suggested. Travelmite (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
In accordance with Wikipedia standards, the most appropriate designation would be to refer to the group as a South Korean one. This label remains consistent regardless of the individual nationalities of its members due to several key reasons. Primarily, the group resides in Korea and possesses fluency in the Korean language, among other factors. In the broader context of the K-Pop industry, it is customary to describe groups as South Korean, irrespective of their diverse origins. Btspurplegalaxy💬🖊️07:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, can you point to these standards of Wikipedia? How does residency or language skill make someone Korean, rather than a grantee of a working visa? Who has sighted the member's passports? Regarding the final claim, customary implies an unquestioned habit; and "K-pop group" is the term reverted out. This explanation proves the ambiguity created by saying "South Korean group", because a group of Americans who formed and perform jazz in South Korea, would apparently be South Korean. Travelmite (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Should "web shows" be included in the filmography section?
I've recently noticed that many articles about South Korean groups include "web shows" in the filmography section. These often aren't actual series, just serialized promotional material that groups publish on YouTube during or between promotions. For this article, they don't seem particularly notable, so I'm unsure if they should be listed, especially things like vlogs. Poirot09 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
If serialised promotional materials shouldn't be listed, should they be removed from all those other groups as well? If it is fine to list them there, why not leave them here as it is? Do forgive me if there are guidelines somewhere for these, but the fact that it's inconsistent with the other groups bothers me. Even if promotional materials and vlogs shouldn't be listed, "Jeans' Zine" and "NewZips" are actual variety/reality shows, so they should still be listed? Chyx1095 (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Was listening on Youtube Music on desktop, saw the bot scraped bio and found the "They are known for..." part excessively editorial. This line was first added on 31 May 2023 (attributed to a journalist) then fleshed out in 27 September 2023 by bringing wordings from the Artistry section. This ventures into music critic territory as artists nowadays rarely have a set look or sound. See the lead on bands such as Portishead (band), Coldplay, Le Sserafim, and fromis_9.
Sure but that's an opinion reserved for the Artistry section. Declaring on the lead that this is what NewJeans are is subjective. This band has also only been active for over a year. Per MOS:RECENT: Terms likely to go out of date include best known for, holds the record for, etc.2601:600:967F:88DC:C86D:F38D:33A9:7AC3 (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts." "-an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
MOS:OP-ED: "-make sure the expectation is verifiable and broadly shared rather than assumed."
MOS:RECENT: "Terms likely to go out of date include best known for, holds the record for, etc."
The sentence in question is a very liberal interpretation of Tiffany Ap's quote, along with not being properly attributed to her. It also says nothing about the band being "known for" for what she describes. (Same ipv6) Symphidius (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. If a new musical group gets known for something, we can tell the reader no matter how long they have been active. There's nothing to fix. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
How do you get "When it comes to aesthetic and musical appeal, NewJeans has been charting its own path with a girl-next-door-look and sweet pop tunes since debuting last July. Instead of high-octane makeup and outfits, the girls are styled as innocent and mostly natural." to "They are known for their girl next door image and 1990s- and 2000s-indebted pop and R&B songs with influences of various dance and club styles." Maybe actually quote the author if you want this in so bad? Symphidius (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be a summary of article text. The reason I don't see a problem here is that the current wording of the lead section is indeed an accurate summary of the article. The sentence you want to remove is a summary of several different parts of the article body. The bit about 1990s style comes from Variety magazine which wrote, "throwback styling, plus nods to ’90s and early 2000s technology, are recurring themes across NewJeans albums". I would be fine with removing anything that does not accurately summarize the article body. Your target sentence is not a problem. Binksternet (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Being known for something implies that there is a broad consensus to this description. "1990s- and 2000s-indebted pop and R&B songs with influences of various dance and club styles." is a far cry from "throwback styling, plus nods to ’90s and early 2000s technology, are recurring themes across NewJeans albums". This is not a summary, rather an entirely original description. Symphidius (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I think that is an accurate summary since multiple sources talk about those aspects of NewJeans. See:
The girl-next-door thing, fine, but it the sentence needs to be worded as "their aesthetics have been described as" or "music critics have described their music as" accompanied by citations. As it stands, the current sentence assumes there is a broadly accepted descriptor despite just being a mishmash of snippets from different music reviews of different songs and EPs. Naturally, the statement would change every time NewJeans comes out with a new song or concept. Symphidius (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. Variety said that they have a recurring theme of "throwback styling, plus nods to ’90s and early 2000s technology". That means they are known for this style. The pattern has been identified by WP:SECONDARY sources.
With Poirot09 voicing opposition and nobody else expressing agreement, you are not gaining consensus to remove any text. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Ultimately you're defending a disputed unsourced statement. You can insist that "The pattern has been identified", but that's not for you to decide. Per WP:SECONDARY: "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source." Despite the sentence being wholly unsourced, I'm in the talk page seeking some sort of middle ground instead of outright removing it.
I'll take the initiative. @Poirot09 has produced a source that sounds eerily similar to the disputed statement. As I've mentioned previously, I would be fine with something like:
"They are described by L’Officiel Singapore as being "best known for their girl-next-door image and nostalgic hit tracks."
"According to L’Officiel Singapore, they are best known for their girl-next-door image and nostalgic hit tracks."
None of that is necessary. The sentence in question is supported by WP:LEAD. It doesn't need to be referenced because it is a summary of referenced facts found lower down in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. "They are known for" is a claim. It needs to be attributed. The disputed sentence sounds like a modified version of Danisha Liang's line with Joshua Minsoo Kim's remark inserted after, with the "influences of various dance and club styles" seemingly tacked on.
"They are known for their girl next door image and-" Wikipedia
I'm not convinced. It's reasonable and logical to conclude that NewJeans is known for several things that are repeatedly mentioned in multiple sources. I am now signing off of this conversation as it is not going anywhere. But I will immediately restore the "known for" construction if you remove it without consensus. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
While not a policy, reliable sources have consistently referred to the term "girl next door" regarding NewJeans. Reliable sources have also consistently referred to "90s", "nineties", and "1990s" when describing their music. I'll concede on removing the "known for" construction.
6 reliable sources describing NewJeans as "girl-next-door".
Just so you know, @Symphidius:, I reverted your edit as no consensus is being made here, and your edits are a case of WP:POINT. Also, I removed your phrasing "contemporary takes" as none of the sources appear to support this claim (WP:OR). As there has been no consensus yet please respect the status quo. Ippantekina (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I didn't delete anything. If anything I tried to work within the "known for" construction. You do realize that none of the sources specifically state that NewJeans is known for their 2000s music, right? There are only three sources cited in the article that mention the 2000s, and only two of them talks about their music. Source 1 does not refer to their music, rather their aesthetics:
In source 2 (a radio transcript), Sheldon Pearce erroneously calls it mid-2000 UK garage, a genre that originated and essentially peaked in the late nineties (Baltimore club is also from the 90s):
With that, I have no problems with the current lead. Although inferring that I have some sort of ulterior motive is pretty hilarious. If everything was properly cited to begin with, I wouldn't be here trying to find corroborating sources. Symphidius (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
sponsors on lead
I am looking for consensus to completely remove the listing of sponsors and various payed "collaborations" from the lead section. It doesn't seem to me like this is standard practice for other artists lead sections, it feels like a purelly promotional addition. What do you think? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I am also noticing that the lead is extremelly filled with awards references, to the point of neglecting any other prominent aspects of the page. This is also arguably a promotional style that should be avoided.
According to Wikipedia guidelines the lead section should establish context and include mentions of significant criticism or controversies. I do not feel like this lead, and to be fair most K-pop leads, do either of those. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Glad to know I wasn't the only one who found the lead... let's say "unique". I've tried pruning unsourced sentences in the lead but there's been strong pushback with this specific section. I think the (unsourced) "They are known for-" line is weirdly opiniated for a encyclopedia, despite NewJeans specifically saying that they don't like to be put in boxes. I know I can probably win if I take it to arbitration but that means a week, maybe a month of free time I have to invest, which is way more commitment coming from a Youtube Music user who's just sick of seeing badly written bios scraped from Wikipedia. This is all to say: you have my support. Symphidius (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
First of all thank you for coming to the discussion :)
You are highlighting another part of the lead with concerns. I think you have a point but at the same time I understand the strong push back that you have experienced.
Even though it is difficult to argue that a group that routinelly cosplay as intergalactic cute rabbits is only known for a "girl next door look" rest assured that there must be some sources somewhere that refere to them in this way.
The lead, and like I said most of the leads of K-pop groups, suffer from being especially barebone and deprived of any actual interesting information. So if you go straight up to edit and remove that I can understand why people are going to think "wait a minute, you are removing the only thing that has a meaning".
Wikipedia is built upon incremental modifications of a whole community, so I think that to approach that part of the lead the best way would be to look for better, more interesting and nuanced sources that could describe NewJeans more effectivelly and give interest to read more. Which is what a lead should do. Maybe you can find something to take from this interview for exemple, I dont remember if MHJ gave some kind of description of the group style: https://magazine.beattitude.kr/artist-project/artistproject-minheejin-part1-eng/Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
coming back to my concern, since I didn't got any answer here and since it really doesn't seem to me that other leads include sponsors (ehm "collaborations"...) I removed them from the lead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@HueMan1 reverted my edit which added the role of Min Hee-Jin as the producer of the group on the lead section. I reverted it back. My edit is properly sourced and relevant enough to stay in the lead. Additional reverts should be properly discussed and motivated here. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, it's not necessary to include this in the lead. For example, Lee Soo-man has played a significant role in creating many famous idol groups, yet he isn't mentioned in the lead of the artist he's created. Btspurplegalaxy💬🖊️05:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
this is what you wrote to motivate the reversion "It's not necessary to include this. While many producers contribute to the creation of idol groups, it's not essential to list them here. The lead should focus on summarizing the article."
The article make already ten of the most concrete and direct references to her name and role, and I added another source that further explain her role on the group. Did you read it? Min Hee-Jin is not just "one of many producers that contribute to a girl group" as you define it. She is responsible for selecting *every single song*, getting them through the recording process, establish and oversee each and every step of the other creative aspects that surrounds the song etc etc
If any other producer has this kind of group under her full creative control it should be on the first phrases of the lead. A K-pop group is not only the group members, you indirectly make an important point that any other major producers that contribute to the group and has their position developed in the article should be included in the lead as well. Either Lee Soo-man or Teddy for Blackpink Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Why do you feel it's so important for her to be listed? Min Hee-jin has worked with many idol groups throughout her career, and there are several K-pop groups created solely by a producer. Yet, the producer isn't typically highlighted. What makes her case different? Should we start making this the norm for every K-pop groups, articles? Btspurplegalaxy💬🖊️07:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
On the message just before I already answered your two questions.
I explained why it is so important for her to be listed, and I explained how I feel about other pages in a similar state.
Again, what do you think about it?
Status quo is not an argument.Wikipedia guidelines clearly states "Even the best articles should not be considered complete, as each new editor can offer new insights on how to enhance and improve the content in it at any time. [...] Please be bold and add content summarizing accepted knowledge, but be particularly cautious about removing sourced content."
It seems like you're overlooking the fact that this information is already included in the article. If you check other articles about K-pop groups, you'll notice that producers aren't highlighted in the lead. While Min Hee-jin played a key role in creating the group, it doesn't mean the focus should be solely on her. She's already mentioned in several paragraphs. I believe we've covered this adequately, and adding that one line doesn't really enhance the article. Btspurplegalaxy💬🖊️02:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
South Korean musical groups/bands are not solely produced by sole producer, it's an collaborative effort. Likelywise, Blackpink can't be considered as "produced by Teddy" mainly as Yang Hyun-suk is well-knowed to also contributed to their production. Including "produced by x" is simply too restrictive and possibly introducing factual errors, including but not limited to, interpretation. If required, a different compromise should be drafted instead for consensus. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)07:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
For space sake you have to be concise on lead. This means restrictions. Stating "produced by x" is factually correct, the reader will be able to further read into the page to get more informations about the topic.
Beside this theorical discussion you make a good point that South Korean K-pop groups (not south korean groups in general) are a collective effort, and this is also missing from the lead. I am all for adding multiple roles, or specifying what a role means with a concise but more precise definition. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that I didn't stated South Korean K-pop groups, I did however state South Korean musical groups/bands. Also, there seem to be a miscommunication and/or misinterpretation causing unproductive tangents to be introducing into this discussion. As stated earlier, a different compromise should be drafted instead for consensus, hence my proposal is to have either [mainly] produced by x or [mainly] produced by x and y, whichever is applicable, in the second to forth paragraph of the lead with sentences that follow up immediately linking their involvement, this may includes materials like their contributions to their musical style, genre coverage, image, etc. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)07:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
This could make sense, I found the position next to ADOR being the most sensible since she is the CEO of it, and acts as a president of the subsidiary. Creating a whole second paragraph, before the songs achievement and such, with team roles etc could be an idea, the point is that Min Hee-Jin has such a wide role (president, executive producer with all details of the recording and selction of songs, oversees all the visual aspects etc) that it felt to me as a more heavy solution that just simply stating "produced by". Which is the solution that ADOR employs as well, each song on youtube is simply tagged in the description with "Producer: MIN HEE JIN" Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe I've already made it clear, twice, that a different compromise should be drafted instead for consensus. Therefore, I proposed earlier stating to have either [mainly] produced by x or [mainly] produced by x and y, whichever is applicable, in the second to forth paragraph of the lead. Your response seems to suggest a refusal to settle for a compromise and/or "agree to disagree" and/or seek consensus, which is neither constructive nor acceptable. Also ping @Btspurplegalaxy on their thoughts on the "compromise/agree to disagree" proposal above. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)14:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
And I was suggesting another compromise, while still possibly agreeing on yours.
I'm not sure how your proposal qualifies as a compromise, given that it's essentially the original version (i.e. w is a x formed by y and produced by z) that was reverted and disputed. In light of this, the statement Your response seems to suggest your refusal to consider other compromises than your own doesn't seem applicable here, as the proposal you're referring to isn't a compromise. A compromise involves finding a middle ground (i.e., different from the original disputed version) that addresses the concerns of all involved parties. Glad to heard that you're open to my proposal. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)14:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I said that your proposal makes sense. I think that mainly produced by is perfectly fine. As it is adding more people that have relevant roles, there again I agreed with you saying that South Korean groups (that I call K-pop groups) are a collaborative effort.
My only concern is on where to place all of this. That's why I kept elaborating the reasoning behind my first iteration, to try to advance the discussion about where to add these kind of info. The paragraph about songs and achievement doesn't seem appropriate to me, but maybe it is.
Stating something along the lines of "The quintet was produced by industry veteran Min Hee-jin" on the lead isn't controversial. Even recently, King Gnu member mentioned Min Hee-jin when describing NewJeans' artistry. NYT's Jon Caramanica references her on his review on NewJeans. @Btspurplegalaxy has continually brought up Lee Soo-man, but no group is known as "Lee Soo-man'sgirl group." He simply doesn't have the same name recognition or "brand" associated with his projects. Symphidius (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Relegating references to Min Hee-jin to "the second to forth paragraph of the lead" is effective erasure. Google only cares about the first lead, as does Youtube Music and a bunch other search engines. This is not a compromise. We're not dumb. @Btspurplegalaxy's only argument is that other K-pop articles don't mention their producer(s). This is false equivalence:
we've told them they're free to do so
there's no uniform guideline
by that logic other K-pop articles don't try to describe their subject's looks and sound on the lead
Pertaining to the misconception statement Google only cares about the first lead, as does Youtube Music and a bunch other search engines, please read on Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:FIXGOOGLE. And btw, the compromise proposal comes from me not Btspurplegalaxy. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)01:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I do appreciate @Paper9oll effort to build at least some sort of consensus. I understand @Symphidius distress because in my opinion sources would grant for a spot to the producer where I put it.
I don't think google or else is releveant, and having Min somewhere would be better then nothing. Especially considering than other K-pop pages are in an even worse state.
I'll reply on @Paper9oll drafts down below. Also please note that I am planning to change the definition of the musical style of the group that is also on lead, I hope it will not be as controversial... Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
It would be different if it had been there from the start, but it wasn't. This is something that can be discussed before anything is added. Btspurplegalaxy💬🖊️07:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
No, that goes for unsourced material.
WP:BURDEN: Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
It's been 2 days and you've yet to make your case on why she should be removed other than that you don't like it. You have removed a good-faith addition. I'll be reinstating @Cinemaandpolitics's addition tomorrow. Symphidius (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Symphidius This definition could be more specific. To avoid confusion to what a "producer" is. Even though I think that it is not mandatory since I don't see any issue to "producer" having a broader meaning which is then developed in the body.
@SymphidiusAlso looking at the same interview I noticed a way better definition that Min uses to describe what she is trying to achieve with the group "I wanted the team image to be cool, chill, sophisticated". This, in my opinion, works way better then the "girl next door image" that you criticized previously. It doesn't exclude it neither. A way better wording. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I essentially had a problem with the entire sentence honestly; users trying to distill their look and sound with no accountability of who said what. It's original research in guise of "summary." I would be going against a wiki-antediluvian and a very active Swiftie, time I do not have towards resolving this issue.
I'm in support of any properly sourced adjectives for NewJeans, and I agree it's way better than what's currently on there. Min Hee-jin here describes NewJeans as "whimsical":
I envision NewJeans as a truly “whimsical” group — not whimsical just for the sake of being quirky, but trying out what hasn’t been done in K-pop even though it should have been.Symphidius (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any problem either. Going by another interview (maybe add this source in the citations too?):
"Some people were convinced that it was unlikely to be a hit because it doesn’t follow the conventional “K-pop idol grammar.” But I didn’t care. I had a clear vision of what I wanted to do, and I was confident with the music I chose. The more I heard skeptical comments like that, it just made me want to showcase [NewJeans] sooner."
What do you think about "-helmed by" or "led by"? It mentions no "producer", rather just eludes that the entire operation is led by her. Symphidius (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I feel like "led by" doesn't change much, it's kind of the same idea. A Producer will always be something like that, even in movies. There is no perfect solution. I went for "Producer" for the very simple idea that this is how she labeled it and how each song is tagged in their official youtube videos.
"whimsical" feels a bit too complex for the lead, it could be added on body, but I actually feel that the NewJeans page is not missing content as much on body as compared with other K-pop articles, take for exemple Blackpink, which are basically 95% commercial prizes and no conceptual reflection whatsoever.
Like I said in the past discussion, probably people just wanted to add *anything* on lead. Which is of course almost nonsensical, you can't just pick such a precise definition from a couple of articles and expect it to define a group. Also it's not very productive in my opinion to put too much in a box a group that is already working in an industry that has a lot of constraints as K-pop. That's why I would directly quote Min with "cool, chill, sophisticated" stating that this is what she is/was looking for. It comes from a relevant actor, and is generally a good source, precise and open at the same time. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Going from the title and first sentences it could be describing an important shift that NewJeans brought to recent K-pop, sadly I can't read the full article. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
To move forward efficiently, below is four proposal for finding compromise that addresses the concerns of all parties involved. Rather than continuing a protracted discussion, let's focus on finding a middle ground (i.e., different from the original disputed version) that addresses the concerns of all involved parties by voting instead.
1. Maintain the status quo i.e. NewJeans is a South Korean girl group formed by ADOR. The group is composed of ...
2. Include mainly produced by Min Hee-jin in the 2nd paragraph of the lead.
Rough example, Mainly produced by Min Hee-jin, NewJeans debuted on July 22, 2022, with ...
3. Include mainly produced by Min Hee-jin in the 1st paragraph (NOT to be confused with the opening sentence) of the lead.
Rough example, NewJeans is a South Korean girl group formed by ADOR. The group is composed of ... and Hyerin. Mainly produced by Min Hee-jin, they are ...
4. Include mainly produced by Min Hee-jin in the 1st paragraph (NOT to be confused with the opening sentence) of the lead.
Rough example, NewJeans is a South Korean girl group formed by ADOR. Mainly produced by Min Hee-jin, the group is composed of ...
Please reply below with '''Support''' [OPTION(s) HERE] ~~~~
Support 3 - 4 because of how much she is relevant.
Partial Support 2 NOT on the current second paragraph, which would make no sense. We should have a new second paragraph instead where even more people from the team are referenced. Executive produced by Min, songs selection and general lead, produced by 250, styled by Choi Yu-mi etc etc This makes for a much more interesting read in my opinion. And I think it would also satisfy @Btspurplegalaxy and @Paper9oll concerns of Min being unfairly predominant. This is my favorite option by far. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the statement, We should have a new second paragraph instead where even more people from the team are referenced. Executive produced by Min, songs selection and general lead, produced by 250, styled by Choi Yu-mi etc etc and concerns of Min being unfairly predominant. I want to clarify that you misinterpreted my earlier comments. I specifically stated that these points were causing unproductive tangents to be introduced into this discussion. Therefore, my concerns do not stem from such tangents. To further clarify, when I mentioned that South Korean musical groups/bands are not solely produced by a sole producer, it's a collaborative effort, I was directly responding to the implication that Teddy [is the sole producer] for Blackpink. This is evidenced by my following statement, Likelywise, Blackpink can't be considered as "produced by [executive producer] Teddy" mainly as [executive producer] Yang Hyun-suk is well-knowed to also contributed to their production, in the same reply. I "agree to disagree" on the above proposal (four options) because as Min Hee-jin is the executive producer and CEO of NewJeans, is justified in being mentioned in the lead. I'm not open to any other deviations, including but not limited to, details about other "team" (note the intentional air quotes) members. These materials should be included in the body of the article rather than the lead, as these roles are subject to change and are not exclusively tied to the group. To avoid circular discussion, I won't reply any further on any further tangents and/or misinterpretation of my replies as I believe that I have explicitly stated clearly on my stance, including but not limited to, details about other "team" (note the intentional air quotes) members in the lead. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)15:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, I valued your idea that it is a "collaborative effort". A discussion about this is not an "unproductive tangent". You always seem to think your opinions as conclusive and definitive.
Support 3 - 4 as she is usually featured in the 1st or 2nd sentence of third-party[2] and official[3] bios regarding NewJeans. A simple "conceived by Min Hee-jin", "executive produced by Min Hee-jin" or variations thereof. K-pop is a lot like theatrical production; a lot of people are involved but it's the director/producer that's part of the top billing. Symphidius (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
executive produced is clean. funnilly enough the main body gives enough reading to let the read understand the rest, which is so rare for a K-pop page. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Since we have at least some sort of consensus I am going ahead and editing in the third proposal. Let's try to move on to something else! --Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Symphidius: Why not? They are a musical group so a brief introduction of their sound is helpful. I didn't even write that they are a "hip hop group" or whatever phrasing you might want to attribute to me. Ippantekina (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
"Their music features styles of pop, R&B, and hip hop from the 1990s and 2000s decades." According to who? Who gets to decide this is their sound? You? Symphidius (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Symphidius @Ippantekina I agree with Ippantekina that looking at the sources to try to describe their music is very important for the lead. I find the current definition, girl next door image and musical stylings reminiscent of the 1990s and 2000s. , restrictive and I would like to expand it with the change from "k-pop maximalism" that many sources describe and that Min Hee-Jin also describes herself as cool, chill, sophisticated" or something of that sort.
Why do you think they're so averse to sourced material on the lead? Because it gives them an out to change it to whatever they want. Unless it's going to start with "According to totally respected music columnist/mag-", then no. There needs to be attribution. Who said what. But they'll never do it because wikipedia lifers love the idea of leaving a personal mark onto an article, specifically celebrity biographies. Symphidius (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@Symphidius We discussed this previously. I disagree with you that "girl next door image" is such a big deal. I agree with you that it is limiting, and poorly defines the group. But then again removing it without a better consensus oriented definition seems to go against guidelines. Let's find a better definition together, one that can include multiple definitions given by outlets in a way that make sense. That's why I pinged @Ippantekina. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@Symphidius: please read WP:ATTNEED: "Do not demand in-text attribution for simple, non-controversial facts." If a multitude of critics have agreed on certain aspects of NewJeans' sound, there is no need to ask for attribution every single time. It's exhausting and on-the-nose. You can literally see what sources are used to describe the group's sound in prose. Ippantekina (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, facts. I didn't have a problem with you declaring that they're the face of South Korea's Y2K. I had a problem with you playing music critic. WP:AESTHETIC: "Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia... Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations." Symphidius (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Symphidiusyea, but if you start to use citations in the lead, while trying to give multiple interpretations, it would become heavy.
@Ippantekina don't you feel that using exclusivelly "girl next door" is extremelly restrictive for the style of the group? Can't we agree to keep it but also expand it with other adjectives, or comparisons with the previous "era" of kpop, which is also refered to in sources? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I can live with "girl next door" because it's so broad and inoffensive that it's essentially meaningless. But keep the subjective artistry stuff out. Symphidius (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
That's exactly what we are talking about, isn't it? That "girl next door" comes from commentary on one album, which is generally restrictive. Which I agree. But other editors don't want to remove it. Which I understand.
The solution would be to look for consensus to at least expand it with a couple more adjectives or descriptions that exist.
Six "credible" sources, most of which I had to find myself, described them as "girl-next-door." They used that exact term. I moved on. Symphidius (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
controversies on lead
If anything major happens in the next few weeks, especially any direct decision by newjeans members regarding their contract, that would in my opinion grant an immediate place on lead section, on a fourth new paragraph. This whole issue has been going around for months and it has been a central talk in the Kpop world and for the group as well. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
producer on lead
@HypeBoy I saw you removed the "mainly" part on the lead section. While I do agree with you this was the result of a long discussion that you can find archived. Your intervention, if done previously, would have made the vote go in that direction I guess so I am not going to change it. Just to give you a heads up if some of the people involved wants to revert it. That would be the reason. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Paper9oll has just reverted the edit (possibly because of this very message). As I didn't participate in the previous discussion, I won't be making another change to it. Cheers. — hhypeboyh💬 • ✏️00:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
It will be possible to come back to the discussion in the future with more people interested. Anyway I don't think it is that significant in my opinion. It would be more important to have more context on lead about the Kpop world etc. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
context on lead
This0k, you removed my addition on lead of this phrase ",which contrast with the harsh and maximalist approach that had saturated the K-pop market."
stating
"No need for that. Its already in the article and doesn't need to be in the lead. It's also false."
First of all there is need for context in the lead section of an article, as stated per wikipedia guidelines. WP:LEAD NewJeans is a group that emerges in a precise industry, many of the sources in the Artistry section discuss this context. I will not quote parts of it because I would end up quoting half the section.
Doesn't matter if someone finds the description of previous Kpop sounds "false", sources are refering to it as such. I guess we could remove the world "saturated" to avoid sounding negative towards other groups. Adjectives can also be picked differently, still conveying the novelty that NewJeans brought according to sources is very important.
Many other groups are easy listening so that's why i said "false". The group has done minimalistic concepts but I would say they are in the same boat as other popular girl groups such as IVE so is it really necessary to point this out? No. Especially when they clearly have done concepts that aren't classified as minimalistic. I also do not think that maximalistic concepts saturated the k-pop market when there's been popular groups such as GFRIEND. Also in South Korea, easy listening songs have tended to always do better especially in recent years, eg. IU "Blueming", Le SSERAFIM "Perfect Night" and PLAVE "Way 4 Luv". This0k (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, I didn't want to say at all that NewJeans do minimalistic concepts, or that since they moved away from maximalism they are minimalistic. One source use the world "minimalism", but I do not think that moving away from "maximalism" means being "minimalistic". It is also why I felt that "girl next door" is restrictive, still I kept it for consensus and multiple sources describing them as such (previous heated discussions). So on this point, I actually agree with you.
The other two articles that you link are interesting. Funny enough Illit was accused of copying NewJeans. And Perfect Night also arrives after NewJeans's established popularity. For me they reinforce exactly what I wanted to pointing out with the edit. Kpop has recently seen a shift to "not maximalist" sound, this is what the sources are describing and the ones on the page give credit to NewJeans for it.
This is why it is in my opinion necessary to point it out on lead, maybe by finding more neutral terms, it is "context". It makes the lead meaningful and interesting to read. Doesn't mean that maximalism is bad, or that others are "easy listening", in a derogatory way. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Just gather enough sources so it can't be disputed. Or better yet, attribute it to a (renowned) critic. That's all wikipedia cares about. Symphidius (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I get that. Let's try to get some consensus with @This0k and others to what is properly high quality sourced, what adjectives to use and such, instead of fighting directly on edits. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate that and i feel as though "They helped revive the easy listening trend in k-pop.", Is better wording since it doesn't mention other concepts, hence my issue with your original statement. This0k (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't you say that "easy listening" could be perceived as more derogative than a comparison to maximalism though? It also feels more restricting, what sources are describing are a more complex shift in themes, style and general approach, which is not easy to sum up of course. Mentioning other concepts is in my opinion needed to establish context.
I am looking at these parts:
Some critics, such as Sheldon Pearce and Minsoo Joshua Kim writing for NPR, described NewJeans's music as soft, contained, and delicate, which is a stark contrast to their contemporaries' "maximalist" and "harsh, buzzing" sounds.
or
Their styling contributed in shaping NewJeans's girl-next-door image, deemed by Tan a "stark shift away from the usually high-octane aesthetic" of contemporary K-pop groups.
also the Jon Caramanica article
The production is sensuous and restrained [...] NewJeans deploys its contemporary reference points in service of a throwback idea.
I felt like he made the most clear and easy to quote explanation of the change, but I can't access the full source anymore I need to find a fix.
All things considered I feel like there are ways to not use the term "maximalism" by using a couple more adjectives to say the same thing, it's just a matter of style. Also I do not particularly dislike refering to them beeing associated with musical genres in the lead, I just find it way way less interesting and meaningful that pointing out to such an important production/cultural shift. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
incidentally Jon Caramanica for the NYT gives yet a gain such a precise and interesting definition of New Jeans on his latest article: "the group developed a singular aesthetic to go with it, drawing equally from high fashion, lived-in nostalgia and contemporary cuteness."
Sadly that doesn't help us to give more context, it would be a replacement for the "girl next door" part but I do not want to replace that to respect consensus. The definition on the second part of the phrase (what made them stand out specifically in which Kpop context) is what is missing. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
removal of informations from body
@HypeBoy has removed my edit that added information about Min dismissal as CEO and the word "support" from NewJeans members. Their reasoning:
No need for details on Min since the subject of this article is NewJeans. Further details can be found by visiting MHJ's article or clicking the references.
Obviously the dismissal of the CEO of NewJeans is a crucial information to have in the NewJeans page, as both primary and secondary sources are noting. The removal of informations also made the reading exceptionally obscure. I have reinstated the edit and I am going to develop it further with more sourced analysis. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree with this, there's no need for information about everything each member said in the live stream as it has nothing to do with NewJeans' notability. Frankly Cinemaandpolitics has a tendency to put excessive details that downgrade an article instead of improve it, even when other editors disagree. — hhypeboyh💬 • ✏️00:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I dunno I think it's relevant information. And most importantly it's all sourced. Cinemaandpolitics has consistently used to talk page to explain their rationale and always tries to meet you halfway, even if they don't necessarily have to. Maybe talk it out instead of character assassination? Symphidius (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
This is off topic, but for a third party, you seem to be awfully informed about my communication history with Cinemaandpolitics. I can see why some editors are suspicious of your legitimacy. — hhypeboyh💬 • ✏️01:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Ad hominem out of nowhere. Too bad, you don't own this article. By the way, I think you got hung up on the "you." I meant that as plural not singular. I really don't care about what happens outside of the NewJeans page and I definitely don't care enough to go through your contrib page. Symphidius (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
If changes aren't made, either I or someone else will address it. There’s no need to delve into excessive detail; that’s not the purpose of Wikipedia. Btspurplegalaxy💬🖊️02:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
@HypeBoy Removing sourced informations that sources are describing as extremelly relevant themselves is the issue. You have a tendency in removing anything that is conflictual to make Kpop pages spotless, as if "notability" would mean that. But this is not how Wikipedia works.
@Btspurplegalaxy You are talking about "summarizing", what you are not realizing is that I've done a great deal of that myself, taking from sources and summarizing even further. Five distinct people talked about a complex set of issues for half an hour, I gave each one of them a single phrase. The section is already pretty concise, I am curious to know what you would summarize more.
@98Tigerius The WP:INDISCRIMINATE section you are linking is talking about: summaries of creative works, databases, statistics, lyrics. Nothing related to this matter to the slightest.
WP:WEIGHT means that you think Hybe positions should be developed more? According to what I read Hybe didn't go into details responding to NewJeans, I added at the end of the paragraph the latest development I could find with their own wording. So, as far as I know, my edits are weighted correctly. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
It’s my personal opinion, but I believe that, from the viewpoint of a casual K-pop wiki editor, there are valid arguments here from each viewpoint, and I thought that the correlation between Newjeans and the Min Hee Jin incident are at best, should be summarized and objectivity is needed for both positions.
I agreed that Hybe position should be given equal emphasis, if possible. The issue, regarding this, arise from the fact that Hybe didn't go into much details publicly responding to NewJeans, there was something about the removal of the videos being asked by advertisers, but even that wasn't developed much and I didn't had a full source on it. They have chosen to only fully answer the reinstatement of Min as CEO, and on that I developed it as much as I could. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Here’s the plan: moving forward, please communicate with me and your fellow editors before making any additions or removals. I’ve noticed you've been making significant changes lately. To keep things simple for everyone, let’s hold off on further changes until we reach an agreement. Btspurplegalaxy💬🖊️20:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion part, I agree with this considering the sensitivity of the situation and the public opinion weighed against both Hybe and Min Hee Jin, plus Newjeans. There could be editors or readers out there who might pick sides and the writing that favour either side potentially offends the other, plus the reliability of the sources selected had to be probed too.
To sidestep a bit, some of the newspapers (the gossip type actually) are criticising Hyeb and support Min but most fan communities out there (not including Twitter) are having an unfavourable opinion towards Min. I prefer to not follow up the turn of events regularly as it is too ugly to do so, especially since hate is directed to the idols, including the ones I stan. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Btspurplegalaxy You do realize that I am the only one trying to discuss any edit in the talk page, right? You never answered my argument that one phrase for each member is already very much summarized and went ahead to roll back everything. Also @HypeBoy straight up removed "expressed support for Min", added again by @Vacosea after you removed it. According to them, NewJeans members didn't use word of support. Problem is secondary sources, let alone primary, says otherwise: "The group alleged harm done inside and outside the company, professed anxiety about their future and voiced support for the embattled K-pop executive who formed them." from Billboard.
Since neither you or Hypeboy never cared enough to discuss any changes, I'll go ahead and restore the fully sourced and summarized edits and expand to them.
Just to make yet again clear what we are talking about, in case you want to discuss it:
1) Min dismissal as CEO of ADOR is necessary to understand the whole paragraph, it's a one phrase information that is relevant to the page since NewJeans was formed by ADOR, first phrase of the lead, relevance also explained by the members themselves.
2) NewJeans members expressed support for Min, as clearly summarized by Billboard.
3) One phrase for each member is not WP:TOOMUCH, they are fully summarized accusations of five people. Removing them is straight up censorship.
4) The analysis of Jon Caramanica gives cultural context, hard to justify the removal of one of the main critics from TNYT.
The way I see it is your way too deeply invested with the situation with Hybe. A lot of the details you have aren't needed. Me and other editors agree it's overly detailed. I mention not to add anything else and the first thing you do is add the material back. It's not hard to summarize the important parts, it seems you want to keep a lot of that information there. Btspurplegalaxy💬🖊️22:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you say which parts to summarize and how you would summarize them? Instead of just clicking on the revert button, linking to random WP:pages or resorting to personal attacks?
This is how I would do it and it covers the important parts:
1. Labor Dispute Begins: In April 2024, a labor dispute between Hybe Corporation and NewJeans' executive producer Min Hee-jin broke out.
2. NewJeans Members Support Min: The group publicly expressed their support for Min Hee-jin throughout the dispute.
3. Min Hee-jin Dismissed: On August 27, 2024, Min was dismissed as the CEO of ADOR by its board members.
4. NewJeans Livestream: On September 11, 2024, NewJeans members held a YouTube livestream, reiterating support for Min and detailing their concerns with Hybe's management.
5. Ultimatum to Hybe Chairman: Minji gave Hybe chairman Bang Si-Hyuk an ultimatum to reinstate Min as CEO by September 25.
6. Hybe's Response: On September 25, Hybe rejected the request to reinstate Min, citing its principle of separating management from production, but affirmed Min’s continued role as producer. Btspurplegalaxy💬🖊️22:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks for answering on the summarization efforts. So we actually don't disagree on many point. You would remove the specific grievances and leave the rest similar to what it currently is. I will proceede to edit in your suggested shortening on those parts.
Regarding the livestream content. How do you feel about this shortening that I have proposed further down, that at least make reference to their complaints?
They went on to further detail alleged issues with Hybe's management, ranging from work place harassement, inaction, private leaks, deletion of previously released content, among others.Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
HYBE lost the injunction. None of their allegations were proven. What position do they have other than Min Hee-jin bad and NewJeans are being gaslighted? Symphidius (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Let me sidestep a bit. You have the right to say that everybody is innocent until proven guilty and I strictly abide to this principle personally, and while the allegations may not be proven in the May 2024 lawsuit, there are others that remain yet to be resolved, including the ones that arose after the lawsuit, like the allegations of covering up the sexual harassment complaints of a former employee. Emotions can be quite powerful and get the better of us, but neutrality is definitely called for, even though I like all the Hybe girl groups altogether. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
@NelsonLee20042020 The problem is that even if me or you think that Min is evil, and the members are wrong for supporting her, that doesn't make it less wrong to remove their very much summarized words of support.
An encyclopedia page cannot become purely a promotional tool. There is a conflict among parties? Then it should be present. The "summarization" that the other two editors propose consist in removing the word "support" and the most basic statements from the members themselves.
Thank you for coming to the discussion. What parts would you summarize further and how?
I feel like what is taking space is the fact that there are five different people talking, each expressing their grievances. Hanni, Haerin and Minji give out concrete exemples that I would not remove. Danielle and Hyein give more human statements that made headlines, they could be condensed by removing precise quotes but I am not sure how.
The one sentence with Caramanica on the NYT analysis feels extremelly relevant, as always with his articles, a precise and concise depiction of the cultural context. How do you feel about it?
The rest seems to me like basic timeline of events and difficult to summarize further, the end especially gives weight to Hybe position and also elaborates on the difficulties regarding the upcoming album. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
also thank you for adding that source that gives a full reading for those not familiar with all the conflict that played out before NewJeans members live. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
The part that in my opinion could be summarized is this one:
Hanni alleged that the manager of an unnamed Hybe group told their members to "ignore her" when they crossed paths. Haerin raised concerns about their medical records and trainee videos leaking on the internet, accusing Hybe of allegedly taking no action. Minji expressed fear of seeing their work compromised, following the removal of content that they had previously filmed with director Shin Woo-seok. Danielle referred to Min as "irreplaceable" stating that the alleged harassement of Min "makes Hybe look like an inhumane company". Hyein claimed that they had heard of Min dismissal through the news, stating that the new management “made it clear to us that they don’t respect us at all”.
They went on to further detail alleged issues with Hybe's management, ranging from harassement, inaction, private leaks, deletion of previously released content, among others.
I find the current photo choosed as first in the infobox to be inappropriate for what is primarly a music group. A fashion even should not be used to portray them in favor of a music event. I think that the "NewJeans at the 2023 Melon Music Awards" photo would be vastly better as a first pick.
My edit was reverted by editor @ValenciaThunderbolt with this reasoning: It's preferable to go with the most recent image.
I wanted to ask, why this preference for a one year more recent picture instead of a picture that represent the subjects in their main activity? MOS:LEADIMAGE states that Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic. This seems to support my choice.
Look for exemple at the portrait of Trump on the infobox. It is from 2017, there will be many many photos to choose from that are more recent. Still that one is picked because it is the most appropriate representations. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
MOS:LEADIMAGE goes in even more detail, stating: "be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see"
If you search for NewJeans on google images you can see that the group is almost exclusivelly associated with colorful or informal fits. The Wikipedia photos is the only one that stands out as extremelly formal. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
My first thought is who cares what event it's from as long as it's a good photo that shows them as they're generally known to look?But, the Seoul Fashion Week picture is a pretty bad photograph. They all look tired and lifeless and it's not representative of their normal look.If we're going to use from the 2023 MMA event then we should choose a capture where all their faces are visible, like this one: or alternatively this one (though the microphone isn't ideal; someone with better skills than I could probably composite from another frame in the video where she's not holding the microphone):
@RachelTensions "a good photo that shows them as they're generally known to look"
That's exactly what I've been trying to say in the past messages. Glad you agree that a music event is better suited than a fashion event for a music group. I also agree that that specific picture of the Seoul Fashion Week is lifeless. Double issues.
I like the current pick from MMA because they are all smiling, but I do understand your argument about their faces being visible on this one which probably makes it better suited. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@RachelTensions Your second pick is also good, maybe the best compromise among the different needs. I favor them smiling despite Haerin mouth being covered. I think that either this one or the one currently on the page are good picks. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Here is a composite of the two images with all members smiling and showing their faces:
IMO, the 3rd image referenced by RachelTensions is the best out of the 3 edited or non-edited images. Regardless, not sure what and why is the hoo-ha as the previous (not AI-enhanced image) is already following the advice of natural and appropriate representations of the [subject] ... what our readers will expect to see in which it was already to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)10:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Tagged as composited, likely 2-3 frames from different timestamp pieced together. However, isn't obvious on the surface to tell apart in terms of originality, the only defect (on zooming in) I can find is the top right corner i.e. the after effects of spot healing however when used in Infobox sizing in desktop (smaller render) or mobile web (slightly larger) or mobile app (slightly larger than mobile web), it's not noticeable. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)11:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I've discovered that WP:COLLAGE are indeed allowed. I do understand that having all faces clearly visible in an high profile entertainment page can be considered important. So, even though I dislike composite images of humans for ethical reasons, I agree with you two with this being the best pick. I'll proceed to edit it in. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I mean, it’s a composite of two frames from seconds apart in the same video to make sure her face is fully showing. It’s not like the frame of her without the microphone was constructed from another video, or interpolated out of thin air by AI. We’re not portraying the subjects in a possibly controversial position or painting them in a bad light by ensuring her face isn’t blocked by a microphone. RachelTensions (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Recently, NewJeans has disbanded as a group and I have noticed that there has been no edit to the article on this. I request that we edit it. Aeriilysm (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
As expected this has instantly become a contentious topic. While it is subject to interpretation what "disbandment" means, if NewJeans members can unilaterally break a contract, if only the subsequent fees are at stake and such... There is zero doubt that the members have vowed to not keep working on new projects under the agency. This is a crucial piece of informations that has to be prominently displayed. I will proceed to edit the body and lead accordingly. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't, it is now. Like I said the discussion around the contract is not the only relevant information. The five members going to pursue their career independently from ADOR also is, regardless if it is legal or not. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I just added in the info about the min hee jin dispatch incident and the stance of other official groups about the contract issue. I am not sure if this is objective enough based on what I wrote and its actually very sensitive to say the least because editors may not have the mindset of viewing it in a neutral way. Hope to hear your opinions and how to change from here. groups@Cinemaandpolitics, @Aeriilysm, @Nkon21, @RachelTensions, @RobertskyNelsonLee20042020 (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
