Talk:Korean Wave/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Third generation/Hallyu 3.0

Neither "the third generation of the Korean Wave" or Hallyu 3.0 are accepted terms and the "citation" for it being a thing is a single academic paper that suggests nothing about any widespread acceptance of a difference between "Hallyu 2.0" and "Hallyu 3.0." Hence, I will be incorporating Hallyu 3.0 into the 2.0 section. Because "Hallyu 3.0" isn't an accepted term, none of the other sources frame the subjecy in that way, and it hurts the article's flow to divide up parts of history that can't cleanly be cut up. :3 F4U (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Korean Wave

Moved from User talk:Freedom4U

 – :3 F4U (they/it) 23:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

All three of the sources I added confirm everything I included. It explicitly states that it spread within East, South and Southeast Asia. Please read them carefully before claiming I lied. I have added all of the information back in. Cheers. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not claim that you lied. That would be me assuming your intent. I was merely pointing out that your source "Transcultural Flow in the Age of Globalization: Digital Platforms, Fandom and Mediated Culture in South Asia," does not in fact state that the Korean Wave started out in South Asia. As well, "moderndiplomacy.eu" is not a reliable source-- especially in comparison to the sources which are clearly cited in the history section, stating that the Korean Wave started out in China, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. which come from academic sources. Freedom4U (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

What "Transcultural Flow in the Age of Globalization: Digital Platforms, Fandom and Mediated Culture in South Asia" says is that Korean content spread within the region early on (specifically in north-east India and Nepal) and then subsequently in other parts of South Asia like Sri Lanka and eventually to the rest of India relative to the rest of Asia (page 80). I guess that's why I included "other parts of...". I don't see how Modern Diplomacy is not a reliable source, is there a reason why you say that? Maybe the sentence just needs to be reconstructed. "The phenomenon was first driven by the spread of K-dramas and Korean cinema into China and Southeast Asia, subsequently spreading to other parts of Asia before proliferating internationally" or "The phenomenon was first driven by the spread of K-dramas and Korean cinema into China and Southeast Asia during the 1990s and early 2000s, subsequently spreading to other parts of eastern and southern Asia before proliferating internationally". I don't know just a suggestion. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You specifically put in a citation for pages 13-15 of that book, you can't do that and then cite information from page 80. The closest pages 13-15 come to stating that is "Since the late 1990s, there has been a considerable entrance of East Asian media elements into the neighbouring societies and to some extent to the South Asian societies." which says nothing of the Korean Wave, and still states that diffusion occurs within East Asia before leaving it. The very first places the Korean Wave started to be a noticeable phenomenon were Chinese-speaking countries like China, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and also several Southeast Asian countries, specifically Vietnam in particular.

Trusting what you're saying about the non-open access part of the book, "Korean content spread within the region early on (specifically in north-east India and Nepal) and then subsequently in other parts of South Asia like Sri Lanka and eventually to the rest of India" still only provides information relative to South Asia as a whole, rather than tracing the flow of Korean culture out of Korea. Freedom4U (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

As for modern diplomacy, they're not a well-established source nor are they an academic source (and there are a lot of academic sources on this subject, so it really does not make sense to cite news sources if possible). They're not recognized by other secondary sources as having any sort of established status and their own about us page states that they don't have much editorial oversight on the stuff that gets published on there. Freedom4U (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The concept of the Korean wave is about the spread of Korean pop culture to other areas of the world out of Korea. I don't see how you can say it's only relative to South Asia when the page says that "Hallyu" spread to other parts of South Asia (excluding Northeast India, Nepal) at a later stage in comparison to the rest of Asia. It then goes on to say that the "belated popularity of Hallyu in South Asia" is because it lagged behind internet penetration compared to East Asia. Obviously we can see how the wave spread out of South Korea into other parts of Asia ranging from China to Japan, Southeast Asia, Northeast India etc. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It's stating that it spread to northeast India and Nepal before the rest of South Asia, not before the rest of Asia. The subject in that sentence is the South Asian region. As well, around the time it spread to South Asia was also the time it spread to the Middle East and also Eastern Europe. It is definitely more accurate to say East Asia/Southeast Asia -> international than East Asia/Southeast Asia -> South Asia -> international Freedom4U (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Potentially considering removing "before proliferating internationally" altogether and combining it with the sentence further down, that way it states:

The Korean Wave was first driven by the spread of K-dramas and Korean cinema into China and Southeast Asia, establishing itself as a regional phenomenon. Chinese journalists first coined the term "Korean Wave" in 1999 as hanliu (Chinese: 韩流; pinyin: hánliú; lit. 'Korean wave'), referring to the success of South Korean television in the country. During the 2000s, Hallyu would evolve into a global phenomenon, and by 2008, the value of cultural exports from South Korea would surpass the value of cultural imports for the first time.

That would both remove the way it repeats itself there and not lead into the article mentioning every region the Korean Wave exists in. Freedom4U (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No it says Korean dramas spread to South Asia at a later stage compared to the rest of Asia and then explains why the spread to the entirety of the region was slower compared to East Asia. Korean dramas spread to Northeast India and Nepal in the early 2000s, around the same time it became popular in parts of Southeast Asia. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Early 2000s is absolutely later than Southeast Asia (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam) where K-dramas expanded in the late 90s, in-sync with the 97 economic crisis. Freedom4U (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Korean dramas gained popularity in China in the late 1990s. Korean dramas gained popularity in various parts of Southeast Asia during the early 2000s when local TV stations began dubbing and broadcasting Kdramas on local TV. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If anything, Taiwan and Singapore beat China to it so that's not accurate Freedom4U (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Singapore broadcast one Korean dramas in the late 1990s but it didn't launch the Korean Wave there until the early 2000s. If anything, the focus should then be on China since that is where the term "Hallyu" came from and where the Korean Wave truly started. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

So the focus should solely be on China or should also state its spread to "parts of Southeast Asia" because most of Southeast Asia experienced the Korean Wave during the early 2000s with Full House and Winter Sonata (just as it did in Northeast India and Nepal over in South Asia). 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=hhhqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false This source speaks about Winter Sonata's popularity in Nepal and Japan. It also states how Autumn In My Heart launched the Korean Wave in Indonesia and how Thailand was one of the earliest markets for the Korean Wave compared to most of Asia. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I know, I've read it (it is also a Korean government source so do be slightly hesitant about taking everything in there as it is). However, Winter Sonata is 2003/2004 (like its popularity in Japan started really with its 2004 broadcast and that was among the earliest overseas broadcasts) Freedom4U (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep but that's why I brought it up because it's from the Korean government but yes the Korean Wave in large parts of Asia really began in the early 2000s or 2000s in general. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hong Kong is a part of China and Taiwan and both are part of East Asia. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It was Full House or Winter Sonata that launched the Korean Wave in various parts of Southeast Asia and South Asia in the early 2000s. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it would be First Love (1996 TV series) and Star in My Heart.

Most observers agree that the Korea Wave, a phenomenon where Korean

popular culture is enjoying fandom overseas, started in China with the

broadcast of What Is Love All About. In 1997, China’s national China Central

Television (CCTV) aired it, where it became a massive hit. On popular

demand, CCTV had to rebroadcast the Korean television drama in 1998.

Since then, more Korean television dramas have received popular receptions

from audiences in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Vietnam. In particular,

Korean television dramas accounted for 56% of all foreign programming

imports to Vietnam in 1998 (Korea Culture and Tourism Policy Institute,

2005)

and also

Since their initial popular reception within what Chua Beng Huat (2004)

calls the pan-Chinese pop sphere (comprising China, Taiwan, Hong Kong,

and Chinese communities in Southeast Asia) and Vietnam, Korean television

dramas gradually expanded their reach.

Pages 25 and 26 of East Asian pop culture: Analysing the Korean Wave respectively. Freedom4U (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

So really it was China, Taiwan and Vietnam that were the first areas to consume Korean content. When I said Full House and Winter Sonata, I was referring specifically to Southeast Asian countries like the Philippines and Cambodia. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No no yeah, still Southeast Asian countries with ethnically Chinese populations-- eg Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand (as well as Vietnam as the outlier) Freedom4U (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

So are you good with my alternative lede?

"The Korean Wave was first driven by the spread of K-dramas and Korean cinema into China and Southeast Asia, establishing itself as a regional phenomenon. Chinese journalists first coined the term "Korean Wave" in 1999 as hanliu (Chinese: 韩流; pinyin: hánliú; lit. 'Korean wave'), referring to the success of South Korean television in the country. During the 2000s, Hallyu would evolve into a global phenomenon, and by 2008, the value of cultural exports from South Korea would surpass the value of cultural imports for the first time." Freedom4U (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I honestly think you need to include "parts of Southeast Asia" or make mention of "the ethnic Chinese communities of Southeast Asia and Vietnam" because for the majority of people in Malaysia and the rest of Southeast Asia (like Indonesia which is the most populated nation in the region) it was Winter Sonata that launched the Wave. I like the rest of the lede but somehow think the "before proliferating internationally" was a nice touch but it seems to be redundant to include that in the new lede. Let me know how you feel. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

parts of Southeast Asia sounds good-- since it wasn't just ethnically Chinese region Freedom4U (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

yeah it does feel a bit sad removing "proliferating internationally" but accurate information comes first Freedom4U (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Great, thank you and may I add "late 1990s" since the rest of the lede talks about time periods? It may work better. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

yup i'll edit it in right now Freedom4U (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks for discussing with me. Happy we came to a decision we both agree on. Have a nice day. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. I do think the lede's lacking with regards to post-2010s (cough cough post-PSY and BTS) stuff, but I'll add that in later as I cleanup the "Hallyu 3.0" section which is in an awful state. Freedom4U (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the new lede is great. 2403:5801:98D4:0:207C:DF69:1190:7736 (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2023

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: moved. per MOS:CAPS and MOS:GENRE. There were good arguments on both sides, and it came down to the sources. GENRE tells us that only proper names should be capitalized. Our sources as described here do have a significant majority capitalizing the W in Wave, which indicates it is, by most scholars, considered a proper noun. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Korean wave → Korean Wave – The "Korean Wave" is a proper noun and therefore both letters should be capitalized. This is reflected in the sources used in the article:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20150611003859/http://www.uky.edu/Centers/Asia/SECAAS/Seras/2009/02_Ravina_2009.pdf
• https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies/article/chua-beng-huat-and-koichi-iwabuchi-eds-east-asian-pop-culture-analysing-the-korean-wave-transasia-screen-cultures-xi-307-pp-hong-kong-hong-kong-university-press-2008-isbn-978-962-209-893-0/42EF813DD937B163B1464C3947362F40
• https://quod.lib.umich.edu/i/iij/11645653.0002.102?view=text;rgn=main
• https://muse.jhu.edu/article/609019
• https://www.mcgilltribune.com/a-e/surfing-the-korean-wave-how-k-pop-kpop-is-taking-over-the-world-012858/

It is also the most common capitalization per Google Ngram. It's also what Wiktionary uses, I'm sorry but I have no clue how this article got moved to "Korean wave." Freedom4U (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. Lightoil (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging @Hiddenstranger and Ortizesp: because they moved the article to the current title in the last move request. (and also because of a lack of activity) :3 F4U (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support in essence per nom. There was minimal research and no discussion in the last RM beyond noting the default to lower case. However proper nouns are upper-cased per MOS and the above research is sufficiently persuasive. Ngrmas is an imperfect resource, however the preponderance of the capitalized form is overwhelming and the near absence of usage in older works suggests that this topic is primarily what sources are referring to when they use it. Bottom line the evidence indicates this is capitalized in a substantial majority of sources and that by itself is sufficient reason to do so in this page per WP:MOS. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:GENRE. And also per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS generally, because this term is not overwhelmingly capitalized in independent source material. It takes only seconds to find numerous lower-case examples, including these just from the first page of Google News results: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc., plus a few that use both "Korean wave" and "Korean Wave" inconsistently in the same piece, e.g. [12]. Also to be WP:CONSISTENT with "K-pop", "K-drama", etc. (not "K-Pop"). Even the abbreviation "K-wave" is almost always written that way, not "K-Wave". And hallyu should also be lower-cased in the article (because it isn't consistently capitalized in sources, either), and given in italics as a non-English word (per MOS:FOREIGN). Actually, it should be marked up as {{lang|ko-Latn|hallyu}}, which will auto-italicize it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Korean Wave isn't a genre using the typical definition, rather it's an umbrella term for a phenomenon involving multiple related genres and various associated popular culture and media. There's no requirement for universal consistency across sources in capitalizing, merely a substantial majority. That aside, the WP:CRITERIA argument regarding consistency is intriguing but I'm not sure the consistency is as widespread as you seem to imply (e.g. K-Beauty). Perhaps it would be better to lowercase them all uniformly, but it's not obviously so, and I'd need see a more reasoned case before I'd feel comfortable supporting that adjustment. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but MOS:GENRE does not apply here, the "Korean Wave" is not a genre of music, but a proper name of a social phenomenon. If you're gonna argue WP:CONSISTENT, the better comparison for the article is British Invasion, not K-pop. As well, the overwhelming majority of the academic literature on the subject capitalizes both words. With regards to Hallyu, MOS:FOREIGN also does not apply here as Hallyu is absolutely a common term in English (and is just as popular, if not more popular in usage than Korean Wave). (See this Google ngram) :3 F4U (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  There's a good chance "British invasion" should also be lower-cased. I plan to look into that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Regardless, assuming your lack of objection is an affirmation that the Korean Wave is not a genre (and the guidelines in MOS:GENRE state that being a genre can not be the justification for capitalization, not that being a genre can justify a lack of capitalization when a good reason to capitalize exists), we should be working off of what MOS:CAPS states, which is that only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Under this guideline, there is no doubt that wave should be capitalized, as it is the capitalization of choice of the vast majority of independent, reliable sources. The "Korean Wave" is not an obscure topic, and has been the subject of generous coverage that at times uses either capitalization, however there is no doubt as to what the sizeable majority uses. I've listed some of the academic literature on the subject below to demonstrate the distribution of usage.

  "Korean Wave" capitalized (33 sources, 11 books, 12 sources <5 years old)

  • Chapters one, two, five, six, seven, eight, eleven, and twelve of East Asian Pop Culture: Analysing the Korean Wave (2008) - Book
  • Transnational Korea: A Critical Assessment of the Korean Wave in Asia and the United States (2009) - Journal article
  • A Study on Flow Experience Structures: Enhancement or Death, Prospects for the Korean Wave (2011) - Journal article
  • Korean Wave as Tool for Korea’s New Cultural Diplomacy (2012) - Journal article
  • The Korean Wave (Hallyu) in East Asia: A Comparison of Chinese, Japanese, and Taiwanese Audiences Who Watch Korean TV Dramas (2012) - Journal article
  • The Korean Wave and Its Implications for the Korea-China Relationship (2012) - Journal article (however with lowercase hallyu)
  • The Korean Wave: Korean Media Go Global (2013) - Book
  • The Korean Wave: An Asian Reaction to Western-Dominated Globalization (2013) - Journal article
  • The Cultural Political Economy of the Korean Wave in East Asia: Implications for Cultural Globalization Theories (2013) - Journal article
  • The Korean Wave: Korean Popular Culture in Global Context (2014) - Book
  • Hallyu 2.0: The Korean Wave in the Age of Social Media (2015) - Book
  • The Korean Wave and Asian Americans: the ethnic meanings of transnational Korean pop culture in the USA (2015) - Journal article
  • Globalization and Popular Music in South Korea: Sounding Out K-Pop (2016) - Book
  • New Korean Wave: Transnational Cultural Power in the Age of Social Media (2016) - Book
  • Cultural Policy in the Korean Wave: An Analysis of Cultural Diplomacy Embedded in Presidential Speeches (2016) - Journal article
  • The Korean Wave Phenomenon in Asian Diasporas in Canada (2016) - Journal article
  • The Korean Wave: Evolution, Fandom, and Transnationality (2017) - Book
  • Korean-Wave celebrities between global capital and regional nationalisms (2017) - Journal article
  • K-Pop Fans React: Hybridity and the White Celebrity-Fan on YouTube (2017) - Journal article
  • K-Pop in Latin America: Transcultural Fandom and Digital Mediation (2017) - Journal article
  • When Indonesians Routinely Consume Korean Pop Culture: Revisiting Jakartan Fans of Korean Drama Dae Jang Geum (2017) - Journal article
  • The Korean Wave in the Middle East: Past and Present (2018) - Journal article
  • The Korean Wave and Korean Dramas (2018) - Journal article
  • Fan Entrepreneurship: Fandom, Agency, and the Marketing of Hallyu in Israel (2019) - Journal article (no mention of Korean Wave, but Hallyu is consistently capitalized when mentioned)
  • Transnationalism, cultural flows, and the rise of the Korean Wave around the globe (2019) - Journal article
  • From Holy Land to ‘Hallyu Land’: The symbolic journey following the Korean Wave in Israel (2020) - Journal article (though I'm unsure about the credibility of this journal)
  • The Evolution of the Korean Wave: How Is the Third Generation Different from Previous Ones? (2020) - Journal article
  • Cross-National Study on the Perception of the Korean Wave and Cultural Hybridity in Indonesia and Malaysia Using Discourse on Social Media (2020) - Journal article
  • The Soft Power of the Korean Wave: Parasite, BTS and Drama (2021) - Book
  • In the Shadow of the Korean Wave: The Political Factors of the Korean Wave in China (2021) - Conference paper
  • Diasporic Hallyu: The Korean Wave in Korean Canadian Youth Culture (2022) - Book
  • Korean Wave in World Englishes: The Linguistic Impact of Korea's Popular Culture (2022) - Book
  • Certain chapters of (I can see from the abstracts that its not uniform throughout the book, but I don't have access) Korean Wave in South Asia (2022) - Book

  "Korean wave" not capitalized (8 sources, 2 books, 2 sources <5 years old)

  • Hybridity and the rise of Korean popular culture in Asia (2006) - Journal article
  • Chapters three, four, nine, and ten of East Asian Pop Culture: Analysing the Korean Wave (2008) - Book
  • Globalization, or the logic of cultural hybridization: the case of the Korean wave (2009) - Journal article
  • Constructing a New Image. Hallyu in Taiwan (2010) - Journal article
  • Nation-branding and transnational consumption: Japan-mania and the Korean wave in Taiwan (2011) - Journal article
  • Korean wave: Enjoyment factors of Korean dramas in the U.S. (2013) - Journal article
  • Cultural Exchange and Its Externalities on Korea-Africa Relations: How Does the Korean Wave Affect the Perception and Purchasing Behavior of African Consumers? (2019) - Journal article
  • Certain chapters of (I can see from the abstracts that its not uniform throughout the book, but I don't have access) Korean Wave in South Asia (2022) - Book (however Hallyu is consistently capitalized)

  I'm unable to get access to the Jeongmee Kim book (for now, I could take a visit to the library soon), but given the sheer number of sources using the capitalizations of "Korean Wave" and "Hallyu", I don't think it'll shift the discussion that much. :3 F4U (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  You're just wikilawyering. MOS:GENRE was clearly intended to cover something that's a "genre+". MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS want to see near-uniformity in capitalization in sources, but what we have is substantial mixture.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think its 'wikilawyering' to point out that MOS:GENRE doesn't state that genres should not be capitalized, but that being a genre by itself should not justify capitalization (which is not my justification!). The Korean Wave is a proper name, and as I have pointed out, sources (particularly, some of the most important literature on the topic) heavily lean towards capitalization. (I would go further and argue that a five to one ratio on Google ngram does show evidence of near-uniformity of use)

  You also argue that MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS want to see near-uniformity, but the policy doesn't state that (and would go against WP:COMMONNAME), and I doubt that that is the spirit of the policy either, given that it has not been applied in that manner. See:

  • This discussion on Fermat's Last Theorem with a 3:2 ratio of capitalization in sources
  • Colt Single Action Army
  • Jubilee Line Extension
  • World Heritage Site which still has a more frequent usage of the capitalization "site" than "wave" does here

  Or if we're going for WP:CONSISTENT, there's French New Wave, British Invasion, Swinging Sixties, Uruguayan Invasion, Cinema Novo, British New Wave, L.A. Rebellion, Japanese New Wave, Cultural Revolution, etc which all see similar distributions of capitalization as the Korean Wave vs 'Korean wave'. "Near uniformity" is your words, but it certainly doesn't appear to be community consensus. :3 F4U (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning support. I'm generally a stickler for MOS:CAPS, but I think (assuming that F4U's list above was generated by an unbiased procedure) a "substantial majority" of sources capitalizing has been demonstrated here. (I know editors differ on where they see the numerical threshold for a substantial majority. If I had to put a number on it, I would say 75% or more is enough to put it on solid footing.) Colin M (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just went through the first 8 pages or so of Google Scholar (plus the books/articles already cited in the article) that linked to articles from peer-reviewed journals (and not undergraduate journals because quite a few popped up for this subject for some reason) and books from reputable publishers. Tried to be careful in not including duplicates as things like multiple chapters of the same book popped up a few times. :3 F4U (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not clearly a proper name. What is it the name of? The lead doesn't even say. In any case, "The Korean wave refers to..." is a no way to define a topic, and ought to be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2023 (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.

Literature review

I've just found this literature review which I've somehow not found before when looking for sources and its very comprehensive (next to Huat & Iwabuchi 2008, but without the detriment of being more than a decade old). Adding it here so I can refer back to it. :3 F4U (they/it) 14:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)