This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea. 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.
@Ji-soo Seo: Most often articles about South Korean subjects are titled using the Revised Romanization of Korean, so in this case the article should probably be titled "Heungcheonsa". I've done a search for the 2 names and there are a lot more sources that use this revised spelling. I think those are 2 good reasons to rename the article. Cheers, Ry's the Guy(talk|contribs)08:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I left a merge request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/North Korea, but I see that the the project is inactive. There's material and references in the history of the above draft which should be added to the mainspace article, while including the name of the draft's creator in the edit summary. Is there someone who would like to take this on?—Anne Delong (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I tried to find this one but the most I could get is some translations of the questions and answers and it wan't clear exactly who did the translations or what the magazine was from. Peachywink (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone! Happy new year! I think the project should reach a conclusion about the names of Korean queens and concubines. I think a lot of people misunderstand these and take these as personal names. Let's clear it up, Hui-bin Jang is not a personal name, as in Margaret Taylor is. Hui-bin is not her first name. Hui-bin is a title, bin is a first tier concubine and Hui is basically just an adjective. Would be something like calling Elizabeth II as "Righteous Queen". It is an adjective+a noun combination, not a name. I think it is confusing that it is written with a dash, and given captial letters. My suggestion would be to redirect such articles to less confusing terms, or find some other solution that would make it clear: this is not a name.
^First names of concubines were rarely used in the Joseon dynasty. Huibin means her title as concubine.
Drop huibin from the article title and rename to Jang concubine. In the article body explain what huibin means. In case of similarly named concubines, disambiguation can be done, eg. Jang concubine (XY's wife) or Jang concubine (date of birth-death).
In case of queens it is a little more ambiguous, since Posthumous names are used, so those are fine. But for queens who were not given posthumous names, they were addressed by their title, which is similar to concubines just ending in -bi and not -bin.
The Korean system is very different of the Western practice, so I understand it brings confusion. It should definitely be cleared up. What do you think? Teemeah편지 (letter)11:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Here are my opinions, as requested. 1. Using 'first name', 'last name' in the present context is rather confusing. In Sin Yun-bok, the first part of the name is Sin, and therefore is a family name while the second part of the name is Yun-bok, and therefore is a given name. Obviously, we have to deal with the strange English custom of scrambling everything and pretending that the second part of a name is the first name. 2. Therefore parsing Hui-bin Jang as given=Hui-bin, family=Jang is nothing but another occurence of English speaking ignorance/arrogance. 3. When using Queen Elisabeth, nothing is done to prevent the parsing family=Queen, given=Elisabeth or family=Elisabeth, given=Queen. The reader is supposed to know that Queen is a title. 4. The correct parsing of Hui-bin Jang is title=Bin, given(by the King)=Hui, clan=Jang. Here, the concept of 'family name' is irrelevant, since a concubine was extracted from her former family and was imported, in a way or another, into the royal family. Here, Jang is 장씨, not 장. 5. The title of a page is the common name. Not to be changed even if stupid: Hui_bin Jang-ssi would be far better. But this is not the common name. 6. The name given at childhood (by a father to her daughter) is another thing. Most of the time, this name is unknown. 7. IMHO, the best method to address the situation is a template, similar to Korean name, placed at the top of the page, giving discretly the correct parsing, i.e. title=Bin, given(by the King)=Hui, clan=Jang. Cheers. Pldx1 (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I know these, you know these, but the general audience does not. Queen is an English word, huibin is not an English word that they would recongise. (Clan names essentially function as last names, as people were known by their clan names, and that's what the modern last name system developed out of. But that part is a nuance.) Right now the articles look like to general readers not familiar with Joseon customs that these women had first name-last name combinations. I had an editor in my home wiki who constantly repeated these in related articles as first names, for example. If a template solution is used, I am fine with it, but we need to construct it meaningfully and discuss how it should look like. :)
Maybe something like {{Joseon name|Jang|Huibin|concubines}} that would result in:
Jang is a clan name, Huibin is a title for concubines.
{{Joseon name|Jang|Pyebi|demoted queens}} → Jang is a clan name, Pyebi is a title for demoted queens.
Yes, you can't have her group's work on the page, such A-pink's albums. Her solo work is all that should be on the page so focus on things like her acting and find enough sources to prove she has individual notability outside of being a member of the group. I hope this doesn't sound mean, I'm just warning you since this the exact reason Minzy from 2NE1 does not have her own page. Peachywink (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but I noticed one more thing. At least 6 of your sources come from unreliable sites (imdb, allkpop, soompi all state that information they put out may not always be true.) so that brings down the credibility of everything on the page. I think Hancinema and Jpopasia are also unreliable but I'm not sure for those sites. Peachywink (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Request
In Her Place, a Korean-language Canadian film made in 2013, garnered Canadian Screen Award nominations for all three of its stars — two in the category of Best Actress and one in the category of Best Supporting Actress. I'm currently in the process of trying to get the remaining redlinks in those articles filled in, on the principle that a nomination for that award is a valid WP:NACTOR pass, but since virtually all of the potential sources for all three of them are in Korean rather than English I'm relatively stymied on those three in particular.
For just one example of the problem, there are two separate IMDb profiles for actresses named "Ji-hye Ahn", one of which lists several Korean film credits, while the other lists only the Canadian film — but I can't read any source which would clarify whether these are actually two different actresses with the same name, or whether IMDb just messed up and the profiles need to be merged. As well, since all the Canadian Screen Award coverage gives her name as "Ahn Ji Hye" rather than "Ji Hye Ahn", I don't even really know which one is actually the correct form of her name under Wikipedia's naming conventions for Korean names, and I really don't want to risk screwing that up. And both of the other two actresses have the same "order of names" conflict between their IMDb profiles and the CSA sources too (although neither of them has the double profile issue to deal with.)
The film already has an article in Korean at ko:인 허 플레이스, and while I can't read that either I can guess from the structure of the article (presuming that the first subsection is a cast list) that these actresses all already have articles too.
It's good that you're trying to find sources that would clear up whether these two profiles are the same person or not - especially since IMDb isn't a source you can use WP:CITEIMDB. As for the name, our naming convention (WP:MOSKOREA) mandates "Ahn Ji-hye". Ahn is the family name, which goes first, Ji-hye is the given name, and should be hyphenated and the second syllable left uncapitalized. I'm afraid I can't help more than that, since I don't read Korean either and the topic is outside my expertise too. You can try some people in the category: Category:Translators ko-en. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I was able to determine that the following IMDB pages ([1], [2], [3], [4]) all belong to Yoon Da-gyeong (ko:윤다경). Similarly, the links [5] and [6] both belong to Gil Hae-yeon (ko:길해연). I'm not sure about the Ahn Ji-hye IMDB pages, though (I found 3). Finnusertop is right about following the naming conventions. As you can see, there are a number of ways Korean names can be romanized, so it's helpful to stick to a standard. Ry's the Guy(talk|contribs)10:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Min-goo or Min-koo?
The current South Korean Minister of National Defense, Han Min-goo (한민구) has his name anglicized as Han Minkoo by the Republic of Korea Ministry of National Defense, as Han Min-koo by the U.S. Department of State and variously as Min Goo Han, Minkoo Han and Han Min-koo by the U.S. Department of Defense. Which form is preferred in English Wikipedia? And how can reader confusion be reduced? – Maliepa (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Pldx1 and Maliepa: I really dislike this system of spelling people's names according to whatever source, even if it is a ministry's website... This just adds to the confusion of romanization of Korean names. Korean names (with the exception of artist names where the artist's name appears on product cover, and can be considered a trademark, like Daesung) should be romanized according to the officially accepted romanization system of the ROK, and that is Revised Romanization and this person's name should be written as Han Mingu. All other forms can be created as redirects, so people who read news articles can find by that spelling. This trying to find sources for spelling is ridiculous. Koreans are notorious for using incredibly mixed and sometimes straight nonsense Latin spellings. An encyclopedia should follow some set of fixed rules and unified naming, not ad-hoc "however XYZ wants to write it" rules. Teemeah편지 (letter)21:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear User:Teemeah. The spelling of the South Korean Minister of National Defense is decided in South Korea. I am not saying that Ashton Carter or Ursula von der Leyen or Sergueï Choïgou are bad looking spellings, but it seems that South Koreans have chosen Han Min-koo. What can be objected to that ? Pldx1 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Not South Koreans chose it, someone who made the content of that website chose to romanise it that way. The officially accepted romanisation system of the ROK is Revised Romanisation, everything else is just made up by individuals. --Teemeah편지 (letter)07:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
They romanise street names and building names and everything else according to RR and yet we insist that the people name romanisation can be ad-hoc, because one person chooses to use this set of letters and the other prefers another set of letters. You really don't see the discrepancy here? An encyclopedia should have uniform writing systems for non-Latin languages. Teemeah편지 (letter)07:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
There are cases in which the romanization differs from the common name used in English sources. As this is the English-speaking Wikipedia, use the name most common in English sources.
Personal, organization, and company names should generally be romanized according to their common usage in English sources. If there is no established English spelling, then Revised Romanization should be used for South Korean ...
Answer for your question : In Korea, most people use their English name like Min Goo Han. Capital for first word and family name in the last.
Also the question you asked, Min Goo or Min Koo, we use both notation in Korea. For example Lee & Rhee, Jun & Joon, Suk & Seok, Sin & Shin, Gang & Kang etc. So you can write in both ways. Koreans can understand whatever you write.
this problem comes from that the people in the world use another language.
First name 한 is Han but his first name 민구, "민" Is "min" but "구" can pronounce many way "Gu , Koo, Ku" because in Korean language system the pronounce of "Gu, Koo, Ku" hear like same — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berlinuno (talk • contribs) 07:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone here is aware of Korean-language sources that discuss webcomics. I know Korean webcomics (webtoons) have a large popularity in South-Korea, and I can't imagine there not being any Korean publications reviewing or describing them. Online sources would be preferred, but I'd be happy just knowing such magazines exist. For more details on what the issue is, see this thread over on the Webcomics WikiProject. ~Mable (chat) 11:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I found two websites that may be of use, but do not know if they are reliable. It would be difficult for me to tell, as I can't read the language. Any input would be great :) ~Mable (chat) 12:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
There are many websites related to megazine about webtoon of south korea.
This two website show for you a host of column about webtoon and original page. but unfortunately , this website not provide to specific translation other language. Im sorry to show more helpful information ;(
Korean webtoons are very sensitive culture of teenagers so the languages in korean webtoons come from newly coined words and internet languages what made from korean young generation. There are many web-sites that created and used newly coined words, for example DC-inside.--Beatlehoon (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you can find more well-made webtoons from Korean portal sites. I write Korean portal's webtoon sites bottom.
Thanks for the input! Cartoonkorea.kr seems to be a portal, like Naver and Daum: I haven't been able to find any meaningful information for Wikipedia on it. Sangsangmadang.com is amazing, and it has a lot of good content that may be valuable for Wikipedia. I haven't been able to find the kind of thing I'm looking for, though: none of these websites have news or reviews for the webtoons we have on Wikipedia. (or at least, I can't find them)
Hi all, could an independent editor have a look at the disputes going on at Talk:The Minjoo Party of Korea, Template:South Korean political parties, and Template:Parties in the South Korean National Assembly? On the latter two, my reasoning for using (the admittedly ugly) "Minjoo of Korea" rather than (the equally ugly) "The Minjoo" as the short form is that, regardless of the page title adopted, the latter doesn't adequately distinguish from the other Minjoo Party, given that both of them are referred to as "the Minjoo Party". I reverted twice on the latter two since the other user didn't respond to my reasoning, but won't do so again without an third opinion. Thanks. —Nizolan(talk)04:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree we should merge something - but which direction? Have one article for landforms of both Korea or separate them? This is also something to consider and standardize across other Korean landorm lists of articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Two and a half weeks ago, I nominated Welcome to Convenience Store for "Did You Know" on the main page. It hasn't had a single review since, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is because the hook is sourced through Korean-language websites. I was wondering if anyone here could quickly check if one or both of these two sources ([7][8]) state that this is the "first web animation based on a webtoon". I minor true/false note on the nomination page should help future reviewers a ton :) I translated these two sources through Google Translate, so I can't be 100% sure if my conclusion is correct. ~Mable (chat) 13:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Consolidating political parties
(Not related to the boring naming dispute I mentioned here a couple weeks ago, don't worry)—While browsing I noticed that thanks to the continual reshuffling of political parties in South Korea there's an endemic problem where there are lots of very short articles on political parties that don't have time to develop before the respective party splits/renames once again, a new article starts and the old one gets forgotten. Examples on the liberal side are the articles for Minjoo Party of Korea, Democratic Party (South Korea, 2011), Uri Party, etc: instead of a single article presenting coherent and detailed information like in many other countries you get a series of short, decontextualised articles.
Another problem is that it's not entirely clear to me what the criterion is for judging whether to simply move the relevant page to a new name when a party changes or to start a new page. The Minjoo Party of Korea article is separate from Democratic Party (South Korea, 2011), but arguably the Saenuri Party could be considered separate from the Grand National Party for the same reason, since other parties merged into it at the same time as the rename—but they don't have separate pages.
I feel like it would definitely be better to have the relevant information consolidated in one place regarding the different sets of parties (conservative, liberal, etc.). But does anyone have any ideas on what the best way to go about this would be? I know there's a conservatism in South Korea page which goes some way towards doing this; should we keep the short party articles while pointing readers to the longer in-depth articles on conservatism and liberalism in South Korea or what? Maybe use series infoboxes? —Nizolan(talk)23:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Joseon/Chosun seem to be roughly equal in popularity (102 ghits for "Hell Joseon", 119 for "Hell Chosun" and 85 for "Hell Korea"). I would keep it at Hell Joseon as the Revised Romanization per MOS:KOREA. Thanks for the article, it is definitely a notable topic. —Nizolan(talk)04:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I just redirected Template:WikiProject South Korea to Template:WikiProject Korea, based on the related discussions in Archive 13. The template is still in use on hundreds of pages, and some of them now have duplicate templates. I can put in a bot request to fix this, but wanted to make sure there aren't any objections. In the older discussions, there was mention of creating a South Korea working group parameter in the template, which is also an option. I personally don't think this is necessary since Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/South Korea is inactive. Random86 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I've restructured the page, merging a number of smaller lists of Korea-themed requested articles into one. Feel free to copyedit it further, in particular removing blue links as fulfilled requests, adding links to Korean Wikipedia articles for translation when possible, and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
A new stub by my students was connected to ko:초가 which previously linked to Thatching. Now, perhaps we changed the interwiki link incorrectly - can someone check this and fix the interwiki if we erred during the class? I think, checking the terminology and translations, that we messed up when we changed the interwikis here, but that would mean that mean Korean wiki has no entry for "Choga-jip"? It seems notable ([9]) for a stand-alone article.... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Choga means a house with a straw-thatched roof. 'Choga-jip' is said the same thing over again because 'Ga' and 'Jip' mean a house. I think 'Choga-jip' should be included 'Choga' but I don't know how to change the interwiki link....I need your help.;-(Gong Ju-young (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I think ALL of those task forces should be piped through here. We did it years ago with WP:POLAND, we had geography, history and other taskforces - and nobody caring for them. I think it's the same here, I doubt any task page has more then one fan if they are active at all. There's just not enough active volunteers to support anything above a country-level discussion; even the USA one is struggling with individual states. How to close them? Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland for example.Mark main pages with {{historical}} or {{WikiProject status|inactive|parent=Korea|type=geo}} or such, post a notice "This project is inactive. For better response, please post at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Korea." or such on the talk page, probably using a more visible template like {{notice}}. To make it more clear the talk page is not used, it could be moved to an archive like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland/Archive1. Another way this could be done would be to move such pages to archives, but then instead of leaving a notice to direct talk here, just redirect them; this is how we handled the old split with "Poland-related Wikipedia notice board". The archives could be then linked from the top of this page. See how the archives at WT:POLAND look like. Oh, on that note, I suggest redirecting Wikipedia:Korea-related topics notice board to WP:KOREA, it's talk page fortunately already does just that. Bottom line - archive, mark as inactive and redirect all those subpages to WP/WT:KOREA. We need to centralize what little activity we have (on Korean topics) in one place where people can reasonably expect that someone will answer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here06:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree about taskforce cruft, with the exception of Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/North Korea. The subject matter is clearly differentiated, we have maintenance tasks that are specific to the project, have active contributors, and maintain a fairly active Portal:North Korea. It would be awfully weird for an entire country not to have even a taskforce when the rule is that most have full-fledged projects. That being said, we don't have or need separate processes for everything, like deletion sorting. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, considering that there are 1) no NK Wikipedians and 2) Korea split creates a weird situation on many levels I think it is best to channel or NK discussions/organizations here, until such a time (unlikely to happen) that NK discussions form a sufficient proportion here that we decide to split them off. For practical reasons, really, I think it's fine to discuss SK and NK here. They are both, after all, under aegis of this project. What benefit do we have from having a NK taskforce? I say it is just creating an under-used, semi-forgotten discussion space, which means some people may go there, ask questions on NK they could ask here and get quicker replies if they did so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Please see here. Can anyone confirm this image is PD and provide missing information before we lose one and only image depicting this figure on Commons (outside photos of the sculpture, themselves problematic given the state of freedom of panorama in Korea, but that's an unrelated issue to this request). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here12:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The bot is currently opt-in only and is pioneered by projects that are few in number but weigh in with scope. Namely Wikipedia's biggest project WikiProject Biography has approved the bot and so far no problems have been reported. WikiProject Korea's assessment scheme is as standard as it gets and has no disputes. It would benefit from auto-assesment since its most pressing problem is a backlog of 1,281 and counting unassessed articles.
Should WikiProject Korea opt-in to have Unassessed Korea-related articles automatically assessed if another project has given them a rating? Please indicate your support or opposition below. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Support. The bot will avoid rating articles that have conflicting assessments (e.g. B class from WikiProject 1 and C class from WikiProject 2). This is a good feature and will result in very few inaccurate assessments. This would be otherwise be long and monotonous work that would be of scarcely higher quality than the bot. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
It's been a few years since this project's main image was changed (back on 4 May 2014 to be exact) so it seems like we're long overdue to update the project banner. I've sandboxed the necessary changes, this is how the updated banner would look:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Can I also suggest adding support for Draft-Class? There are dozens of Korea-related article drafts, so allowing |class=draft in the banner would give the project a better means of tracking them. Would anyone object to making these changes? PC78 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't object to the change. The more I look at it, the more it grow on me. It's like us as a whole are carrying the WikiProject to success. ☴ Jaewon [Talk]21:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I stumbled across this article, which is very poorly referenced. At first I thought it might be a hoax, as there's not even a interwiki link to a Korean language page, but the article creator seems to have been a solid Wikipedian. Could someone help reference it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!08:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
This is helpful stuff, thanks. Is there anything in Korean Wikipedia (I presume it exists, forgive me if I'm using the wrong term for a language/s) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!11:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
There's a couple of sources I found with a quick Naver search: 1 an entry from the Digital Local Culture Encyclopedia of Koream, 2 a mention from the website hosted by National Folk Museum of Korea, 3 a mention in the book 우리 꽃문화 답사기. Doesn't look like there's anything in the Korean Wikipedia though. KJ Discuss?11:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
There are several Korena language references, reliable ones. They should be put into the article. Not having an article in kowiki means nothing, they donát have a lot of articles on several topics yet. :) I wrote articles in huwiki on Korean topics they don't cover. They are not a big wiki. :) Teemeah편지 (letter)15:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I added to sections I could understand from Korean. As much as I can see the description of the exact ritual is not in these sources. So I added a refimprove tag. Teemeah편지 (letter)09:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
As I will be teaching a new edition of my Sociology of Globalization course in Korea, I've decided to give students some suggestions to important missing articles (since they have a lot of trouble coming up with their ideas). I've been restructuring Wikipedia:WikiProject_Korea/Redlist, through I still need to do some more work (anyone is welcome to help by removing blue links and adding stuff). In particular, I wonder if anyone can think of some interesting topics related to globalization in Korea, of just Korean society that are missing. Biographies are fine too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear Korea experts: I moved this draft to mainspace since the subject won a boxing championship, but I am not familiar with the naming patterns in Korea. Can someone here fix this up if I have used the names incorrectly? Also, if there are references out there that are not in English that can be added that would be helpful. Thanks.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Finnusertop. By searching with the new form of the name, I was able to add references for some of the information. However, there are likely some reports in languages that don't use the roman alphabet, and I don't know how to find these. I don't see anything particularly "contentious", though, so I think I will wait to see if editors who speak Korean or Japanese improve the referencing.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Abacus#Korea is a very short section, just one paragraph of two sentences. Here's the whole section:
The Chinese abacus migrated from China to Korea around 1400 AD. Koreans call it jupan (주판), supan (수판) or jusan-means calculating with an abacus- (주산). [Citations omitted]
The second half of the second sentence makes no sense. There is a source cited but it's in Korean, which I don't read. The source page is fairly short. Would someone please look at the section and the source and make the English readable? Thanks in advance. (I've also posted this request at Talk:Abacus#Korglish?.) Thnidu (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Reorganized, removed blue links, etc. I was focusing mainly on South Korean topics though. Pretty please, do not hesitate to add stuff from your own to do lists there. I'd like to have as many ideas as possible for my student assignments :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The "serial kidnapping" article was about Comfort women, so I redirected it. The text in that article was attempting to be a POV fork, with lots of denial and revisionism. Rather than host a POV version, the material should be worked carefully into the main article about comfort women, without undue emphasis on the minor position of revisionism contradicting the mainstream consensus about the comfort women program. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Model as a profession for idols
Hi! I keep seeing people adding "model" to idols' and actors' infoboxes as a profession. I think modeling in the entertainment industry (eg. photoshoots for magazines and appearing in advertisements) is part of being a celebrity, it is given. I don't see Western celebrities listed as models, take for example George Clooney, who frequently appears in all sorts of ads from coffee to watches. I think we should also remove the model description from idol and actor profiles, except for the people who did actually do professional modeling, like Kim Woo-bin or Lee Soo-hyuk. Teemeah편지 (letter)12:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
More eyes welcome on this mess of duplicated and probably non-notable articles being promoted by a bunch of WP:SPAs, especially since their activities are starting to leak into other articles (e.g. replacing every picture on gayageum with a picture of her).
Sheesh, what a walled garden. I will have a look when I have time. I usually tend to redirect these albums to the artist page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Personally I would refrain from creating it right now, particularly the BLP. For controversial topics, it is better to wait for the allegations to be proved. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Kisaengs did provide sexual services. There are plenty of trustworthy sources attesting that. I think Koreans keep removing such references from the article because they want to keep their history "clean". In relaity Kisaengs were kind of prostitutes. They were also conversation partners, educated artists, yes, but they also slept with their patrons....for money. Teemeah편지 (letter)17:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
To my knowledge, geishas rarely provided such services and most geishas did not. Kisaengs on the other hand were regular prostitutes, who were also very educated in the arts. I made a short note in the article with sources. Teemeah편지 (letter)15:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
