Wikipedia

Talk:Min Hee-jin/Archive 1

< Talk:Min Hee-jin
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Cinemaandpolitics in topic "pedophilia allegations" section
Archive 1

Adding her birthday.

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So on December 16, 2022 Newjeans wished Min Hee Jin a happy birthday. This means December 16, 1979 is most likely her birthday and it should be added but I assume no reliable source has been found. Jjjjfghh (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Photo choice

Latest comment: 2 months ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Is it a standard policy to use as a main photo a picture of someone in emotional distress? This is especially concerning since there is an ongoing legal battle around this person. Isn't there another copyright free photo? Or at least a better screenshot from that video? --Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s not the greatest photo but I don’t think you can get a good image of her from the video. There wouldn’t be no other available copyright free pictures of her. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 04:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what is the intention of the OP for uploading such photo, seem to be non-NPOV imo. I looked through the YouTube video which is licensed under CC, there are portion that are better (not crying or unglam) but not the best (quality wise) nevertheless those better portion are better than this controversial image. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey! I'd like to apologize if the photo comes off as inappropriate as I don't have any intention of demeaning her whatsoever. I tried to look through more sources for better quality photo/photo of her not in distress but unfortunately those are what I am able to find at the moment. If possible then I can request for deletion for this photo and the other two that I uploaded. Again, I should've known better and I'll try my best to avoid uploading such photos like this. YuhakGuardian (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
@YuhakGuardian I believe that you should request "G7. Author or uploader request deletion" instead given that concerns raised here and also on Commons. However before you request for G7, you will need to remove the photos on all Wikipedias (just give a appropriate edit summary when doing so else risking getting reverted) if it is currently being utilized otherwise your G7 will be rejected. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
The photos should be gone by now as I've requested for a G7 for all related photos that I uploaded. Once again, I'm sorry for causing such concern like this. I will be more mindful next time when it comes to these sorts of topics, and thanks for the advice as well. YuhakGuardian (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
@YuhakGuardian Thanks you for initiating G7. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear I still think that a better screenshot from that video is possible.
This is the video link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt3AafMk3XI
If someone wants to give it a shot maybe they could post a selection here and then decide which one would work. It seems to me that her story highlights multiple topics in the korean entertainement industry so a photo would still be useful. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Since another picture was added I took the time and found a screenshot where she at least looks straight and not downward. It seems to me that it doesn't hold the same emotional distress value than the others selected. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I went back to the video link that I used initially for the main image: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkhMzgyJ0yw
I did notice that there was a short moment in the video where was smiling (approx. at 7:03 or 7:04 mark of the video). I wonder if that is appropriate to be used or not? Or do we need one that's more of her looking normal and not in distress? YuhakGuardian (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@YuhakGuardian Looks okay. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I favor the more neutral look of the one that it is up now, but the smiling one is also OK. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"pedophilia allegations" section

Latest comment: 1 month ago10 comments3 people in discussion

This section was recently titled following the expansion of the second one about management. Starting from the title there is an issue since the various sources points to a sexualisation minors and not to pedophilia age range. Secondly the section is confusing to read and unclear to what it actually refers to. There is no precise reference to what has been the critique about New Jeans (mainly the lyrics of Cookie) where and how was she "supporting" pedophilic content and such. Or other accusations of sexualization that she had in the past. I'm going ahead to rewrite the whole section to better reflect the various points. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I proceeded to expand the paragraph. If someone that knows her better wants to write a proper and better developed paragraph, distinct from the controversy section, about her inspirations (minor sexuality, naziexploitation but also maybe something else?) here there's a longer interview with her:
https://magazine.beattitude.kr/artist-project/artistproject-minheejin-part1-eng/
https://magazine.beattitude.kr/essay/artistproject-minheejin-part2-eng/ Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I went to add an "allegedly" to the section since I can't seem to find an original verified copy of her posts on Instagram which should have been these ones:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cab2iuMpTfS/
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cab1H0Fp2z1/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CW2kY5SJry9/
I guess that there's ground to scrap the whole section since it only refers to tabloid sources (https://www.koreaboo.com/news/min-heejin-ador-pedophilia-problematic-minors-inspiration-instagram/). Still it seems to me worthy enough to keep in its present form, waiting for a more comprehensive writing about her inspirations.
What do you think? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Note that, Koreaboo is considered as unreliable source as per WP:KO/RS#UR in which this article is part of the WP:KO. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I imagined. That's why I didn't linked it as source and falled back to the general definition of "people online".
Except for the title my edits were fully reverted, which is troublesome because in this state there are the same exact issues of having no source plus the whole paragraph is unclear and confusing:
1) One movie that she allegedly shared on her instagram is noted but not the others. There is no context whatsoever to the whole thing.
2) There is still a false "pedophilia" claim on the body of the paragraph.
3) There's no reference to what has been the conflict regarding New Jeans (mainly the lyrics of Cookie) while on the Cookie page this has been properly analyzed.
What's the point of reverting to a previous state that is even more confusing and equally unsourced? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The new information added was wholly unsourced. I have no issues with what you want to add if you provide reliable secondary sources. None of the films or the Sherlock info you added were mentioned in refs. Everything that is now in the page IS sourced if you check. Only info that could be added is about "Cookie", since it's mentioned in the fourth ref. Poirot09 (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Have you read the version you reverted to? There is the exact same issue with sources but worst because there is no context. Where are the sources? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
There are literally four refs? Here: [1][2][3][4] Poirot09 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
So let me get it straight, your issue is about adding the name of the other two movies and album that are not directly mentioned in this article (https://sports.khan.co.kr/entertainment/sk_index.html?art_id=202207281604003&sec_id=540101) even though the article is refering to the exact same instagram posts that had them as well?
Then I am rewriting it with my second formulation that at least made clear what age are we talking about, what was mentioned about new jeans, where those images come from etc Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
HypeBoy Since you keep reverting can you please be explicit about what parts are not supported by references? The lyrics of Cookie, the outfits? This is the core of the debate and explicitelly named on the first reference.
You are reverting to a previous version that is just more vague and confusing. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lee, Sun-myung (July 28, 2022). 하이브 민희진 '롤리타 성향' 논란...뉴진스 론칭 거부감 확산 [Controversy over Min Hee-jin from Hybe's 'Lolita tendency'... Spreading disapproval for NewJeans' debut]. Kyunghyang Shinmun (in Korean). Archived from the original on February 6, 2023. Retrieved February 6, 2023.
  2. ^ Hwang, Hye-jin (August 10, 2022). 민희진, 로리타 의심 악성루머 고소 "뉴진스 악플러도 선처 NO" [Min Hee-jin sues over Lolita malicious rumours. "No mercy towards NewJeans' malicious commenters."]. Newsen (in Korean). Archived from the original on May 11, 2023. Retrieved February 6, 2023.
  3. ^ Choi, Jae-won (February 2, 2023). 뉴진스 소속사가 '악플러' 대거 고소하자, "여자만 팬다"며 난리난 여초 커뮤 회원들 [After NewJeans' agency sued a large number of 'malicious commenters', members of the female community went crazy saying, "Only women are targeted."]. Insight (in Korean). Archived from the original on April 2, 2023. Retrieved February 7, 2023.
  4. ^ Yang, Haley (August 30, 2022). "Under 19 and full of innuendos: NewJeans controversy is latest in K-pop sexualization". Korea JoongAng Daily. Archived from the original on August 17, 2023. Retrieved August 17, 2023.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Min_Hee-jin/Archive_1&oldid=1226475159"