Talk:Goo Hara

Requested move 22 December 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Remove retracted by requester. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 17:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Goo Hara → Goo Ha-ra – WP:NCKO states that, as Korean names can be romanized a number of ways, Wikipedia uses the dashed version for standarization purposes. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 07:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• WP:NCKO's condition is "if there is no personal preference, and no established English spelling." Sawol (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Sawol: Moved this to contested. Would you say there's an established English spelling? I don't believe Goo ever established a spelling of her name, through self-romanization or otherwise. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 08:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I would say her personal preference seemed to be Hara, not Ha-ra. Her instagram account uses “HARA”. Alex (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, yup that makes sense, I agree then. Requested move retracted. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 17:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

---

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goo Hara/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 10:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Review

Hello, I am looking forward to working with you and reviewing this Article. I will provide thorough feedback in a few hours after carefully reading this. Regards, ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The article is neutrally written and avoids the WP:FANCRUFT that is endemic to K-pop/celebrity articles, so well done on those fronts! I fixed some grammar wording, but there are more things to clarify/fix. The lede does not adequately summarize Goo's life, particularly the legacy of her death and I think it's worth noting she was one of the first/few K-pop singers with a large following not just in South Korea but also Japan.

The section about the assault needs the most work imo. Some of the phrasing is ambiguous/unclear. It should also become an explicit subsection perhaps , because this is beyond the typical Personal life. Some phrasing is subtly wrong, for example it wasn't 'during' the incident that was diagnosed. It's very suggestive and the language should be more explicit.

I am available for more feedback/questions and think this article is on its way to GA status. No major topics are omitted nor does it lose focus on any specific details. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Shushugah, thanks for the kind words, the current state of the article is a fruit of many editors working on it. Breaking down on your review, what's to be done were:

1. Expand on lead to summarise Goo's life
2. Rephrasing in the section about the assault
3. Split the section about assault into an explicit subsection.

What's done:

1. Expanded the lead. Before, it was writtern only for events up to 2015. It now covers briefly 2016 to 2019, and a separate paragraph on the legacy. I have also placed in a couple of words about her being popular in Japan. As for noting that she was one of the first/few K-pop singers with large following in both South Korea and Japan...
2. The section of the assault: I have reworded the text you have highlighted upon reviewing the present sources. I have reordered the trial details in chronological order upon further digging into the Korean sources (I guess my Korean language lessons were effective :D can't do much before taking the classes), and it should be less disjointed and has more clarity on the trail proceedings.
3. To support the assertion that she was/is popular in Japan, i dug up sources to assert that she had gained popularity through Kara (the group had promotions in Japan prior disbandment) and that she was well-received by fans in her last mini-tour. However, I think my phrasing is awkward though.
4. I have split out the assault section into its own section. It impacted not only her personal life, but career as well. I don't think subsection would be sufficient. However, the section title may need some downsizing. Any suggestions on that?
5. Similarly I have split out some text in the her death section as Legacy section. – robertsky (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Reordered the Personal life section to lump the the case and death into personal section. – robertsky (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I boldly renamed some of the new sections for clarity fixed some spelling typos (be more careful next time) which were introduced. I fixed those and now have marked this article as GA! Congratulations! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and acceptance! Re:spelling typos, I have got to fix the bad habit of editing in the middle of the night, but yet it is one of the more productive timings of the day for me. – robertsky (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight on death in the lead section?

At the moment, about two-thirds of the lead section focuses on Goo Hara's death. To me this seems inappropriate for a number of reasons, but in terms of Wikipedia standards, I believe the section has gone awry of MOS:LEADREL. The second paragraph in particular is heavy on specific details, all of which are covered in the body of the article; and in turn, a few key points from the article's body could be summarized in the lead, but at the moment aren't given much weight, if any. For example, Hara's hosting roles and solo tour are both absent in the lead, and her participation in Kara has only a passing mention.

Perhaps this need to be re-balanced? peppy (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Summary basic info

I am looking for consensus from users that contributed to the talk page @Shushugah @Robertsky @Peppyluscious

I don't understand why the summary goes into extensive details of the law aftermath of her suicide while giving very little of the basic facts that preceeded it. This gives the readers little margins and subsequent reading material to understand such a complex situation.

1) I would like to shorten the law aftermath paragraphs. Also note that the petitions were not limited to molka but also refered to revenge porn more generally.

2) I would add another one that states "Goo suiceded in xxx. Following the suicide multiple possible causes were highlighted : general social pressures, strict moral standards reserved to idols in South Korea, isolation as a soloist, long sordid legal battle with her ex, the involvement of her friend Choi Jong-hoon in the Kakao chatrooms, the suicide of her close friend Sulli."

Just a rough sketch. There are many reliable sources to support this: https://abcnews.go.com/International/deaths-goo-hara-sulli-highlight-tremendous-pressures-pop/story?id=67303374 https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/world/asia/k-pop-suicide-goo-hara.html (https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/the-star-malaysia/20240508/281874418492235) https://www.mk.co.kr/en/society/11019563 https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/entertainment/article/3039159/k-pop-singer-goo-haras-death-less-six-weeks-after-her-k-pop

What do you think? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cinemaandpolitics thanks for the expansion and updates in the lead. However, for the references, they should be kept at a minimum in the lead. If it is something that's already covered in the content body, you don't really need to have the references in the lead. – robertsky (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I will proceed to move the references of the various petitions plus the kakaochats investigation onto the body to make it cleaner.

Regarding the death section this is exactly the problem I noticed with the whole article, there is almost no reference on the body to what actually brought her to suicide according to the NYT, ABC, SCMP etc Meaning the enormous social pressure (both online through pann and naver comment section but also in real life with cutted sponsors etc) that idols face in SK regarding their sex life, alleged use of drugs, plastic surgery, even the simple choice of pictures posted on instagram or the tone used on tv interviews.

There is a small reference on her being victime blamed on the section of the legal battle with Choi, and that's it.

I propose to create a new section called Social pressure and harassement to develop the enormous amount of topic that the sources highlight. I would place it after the "domestic dispute" section and before the "Death, investigation" section. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to be specific these are the kind of comments and discussion Goo and Sulli had to endure. Reputable outlets often talk generally abut the harassement and don't show individual hate messages, so this comes from "non reputable" sources, still it is good to have a precise reference to fully understand what they are talking about.

https://www.soompi.com/article/1395950wpp/super-juniors-kim-heechul-fires-back-at-criticism-over-his-remarks-about-how-malicious-commenters-acted-after-passing-of-sulli-and-goo-hara

https://www.soompi.com/article/1016695wpp/goo-hara-clarifies-misunderstandings-controversial-instagram-post

https://netizenbuzz.blogspot.com/2018/09/what-was-severity-of-goo-haras-assault.html

https://netizenbuzz.blogspot.com/2016/12/sulli-responds-to-lolita-controversy.html

https://netizenbuzz.blogspot.com/2019/04/does-sulli-have-career-left-in-industry.html Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cannot use these sources per WP:KO/RS for soompi and blogspot is generally considered self pub (and may also fall under the same unreliable scope in KO/RS). – robertsky (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want to use those articles, netizenbuzz specifically is part of the harassement sphere.

Soompi is already used in a lot of places in the main article though, for the simple reason that it is one of the few that translate dispatch, to which Goo Hara as well went to give her side of the story. You are not going to see these translations on the new york times sadly.

Anyway I think that the new paragraph about the multiple harassement topics can be composed excluivelly from RS. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cinemaandpolitics, if I am not mistaken, Soompi was used here before the KO/RS was created, therefore being grandfathered in. Ideally, these references should be replaced with other sources. If left in, it is usually because it was hard to find an equivalent 'clean' source. New usages are discouraged until either it is taken off from KO/RS after a discussion at that talk page or WP:RSN. – robertsky (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

For specificities a clean source may be hard to find now as if was in the past. It doesn't mean that Soompi is generally reliable, it just means that english translations of korean entertainment people commentating on an harassement scandal (to make an example with Heechul declaration) will not be easy to find on a column by the NYT. They will do a general analisy out of it and move on. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You can always use the Korean sources as references. There are no requirements that references has to be in English. – robertsky (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Aand... it's done. I think it turned out pretty well, with many new sources that offer an interesting read. This is good groundwork for a further rewrite of the K-pop page. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

isolation as a soloist

Goo Hara experienced a difficult solo career according to this NYT reference. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/world/asia/k-pop-suicide-goo-hara.html https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/the-star-malaysia/20240508/281874418492235

While I don't disagree with what current material states about her being well received in Japan I think that there is more to develop in describing the situation. Was she completelly unpopular in Korea? How did she sell? What numbers did she had in Japan in both venues and album sales? As multiple sources point out she was accustumed to having a lot of fans and the isolation as a soloist must have played a big role in the last years of her life.

More sources to point out to specific numbers could help establish context in the already existent "Final projects before death" section.

What do you think? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)