This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
@Binksternet the edit that you reverted re: the lead sentence was made to bring this article in line with the guideline for presenting dual citizenship in the lead sentence per the "Nationality" section of WP:MOSBIO.
"Korean-American" is ambiguous and could be used to describe somebody that holds American citizenship and is of Korean ethnicity. The fact that this very article links to Korean Americans, the article for Americans of Korean ethnicity, when referencing Jung's South Korean nationality, underscores this.
@Paper9oll I'm not going to engage in an edit war with someone Wikipedia:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING over following the manual of style guideline. There has been no discussion other than "no one ever disputed it before" regarding the wording of the lead sentence, nor has there been any consensus that the manual of style should be ignored.So what is the reason we're so hellbent on reverting every effort to bring this into alignment with proper MOS guidelines? RachelTensions (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could jolly well could engage in edit war if you want to because the current lead is the result of "consensus" after edit warring years ago. I had also gone ahead to delink "Korean-American" from Korean Americans since this wasn't even mentioned at target. A downright ignoring "consensus" by claiming to be to BOLD is basically also STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING or whatever essay. The term "Korean-American" implies that she either [South] Korean or American without conclusive while your claimed BOLD changes to aligned with MOS guidelines is implying that she has both [South] Korean and American citizenship, see the differences? I don't think that your "no consensus" claim here is valid since this was already disputed prior and @Binksternet also stated "The term Korean-American can mean either or both things. It's not just ethnicity. The term is appropriate here". I also don't see why the existing IAR should be forgo for the broken (not a "catch-all") MOS solution, a different middleground should be proposed instead. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)08:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through 12 years of archived discussion on this talk page there has been no discussion on the topic other than when you seemingly implemented it. At the time the ambiguity of the wording "Korean-American" was brought up as well and it was essentially shot down with "Nope." and no further discussion ever happened.It's my understanding that guidelines should be followed unless there's a good reason to ignore them; I've been racking my brain trying to think of a good reason to keep an the ambiguous "Korean-American" instead of the more clear & unambiguous wording as laid out in the manual of style, but I just can't think of one.The term "Korean-American" implies that she either [South] Korean or American without conclusive while your claimed BOLD changes to aligned with MOS guidelines is implying that she has both [South] Korean and American citizenship, see the differences?So you're admit that the term "Korean-American" is ambiguous and could mean either she's of South Korean and American nationality, or that she's American of Korean descent. Yes, both are true in this case. your claimed BOLD changes to aligned with MOS guidelines is implying that she has both [South] Korean and American citizenship My changes aren't implying anything; they're meant to be clear, concise, and unambiguous. By writing "Korean-American", we're leaving the onus on the reader to figure out whether we mean "Korean-American" ethnicity, or "Korean-American" citizenship, or both. This might be clear to someone who knows that (per the MOS) we don't include ethnicity in the lead sentence, but to a layperson it could be seen either way.Over in our discussion here you mentioned you were unfamiliar with the way "Korean-American" could be interpreted in the United States. I, and a few other people along the way, who are familiar with its possible interpretations in the Western world, have stated that it could mean both to a Western reader. So why leave it ambiguous? RachelTensions (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even stated that "consensus" came from discussion and "consensus" doesn't has to come from discussion. I also didn't implied that "the term "Korean-American" is ambiguous", you misinterpret my words as usual. I also didn't implied that I was "unfamiliar with the way "Korean-American" could be interpreted in the United States", it was saying that it was an possibility because you gave some random USA subjects hence also Hyphenated American style guides is a thing in the States anyway so it basically down to the writer to write it however they and their news company preferred it their product (news articles) to be written in. Regardless, if that's how you want to kept misinterpreting my words then so be it, you want to keep on arguging or you want a middleground to solve that so-called proclaimed "ambiguous"? And no, that middleground shouldn't and/or mustn't be the broken (not a "catch-all") MOS that you kept insisting on otherwise it won't be called middleground but merry-go-round. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)08:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it was saying that it was an possibility because you gave some random USA subjects hence also Hyphenated American style guides is a thing in the States anyway so it basically down to the writer to write it however they and their news company preferred it their product (news articles) to be written in. If the fact that either interpretation is a "possibility" based on any given news org's own manuals of style doesn't say "ambiguous" then I'm not sure what does.Anyway, here are some featured articles for dual-citizens that follow the MOS guideline that you keep stating is "broken": Angela Lansbury, Christopher Nolan, John OliverWhat do you propose as a middleground?If you wish we could request an opinion from an uninvolved third party at WP:3ORachelTensions (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you misinterpreted my reply, I did specifically said that it's broken because it doesn't "catch-all" hence you kept on emphasising that WP:OTHERCONTENT including FA is written as such doesn't solve the "catch-all" concerns. I'm not sure, what is the alternative other than resolving the ambiguity if that's even a thing (apparently to selective audience, it's) but doing wikilink each term without any rewrite but even than, wikilinking also doesn't means that target may mentioned such i.e. where the whole dispute and selective interpretation i.e. wikilinking to Korean Americans started from and/or interpretating Korean Americans as ethicity started from. Otherwise, expand Korean Americans for such scenario i.e. not just about ethnicity. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)09:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So just so we're clear, what is the exact rationale you're getting at for not just following the MOS guidelines as written? Like, what harm would come to the article if we used "South Korean and American" in the lead instead of "Korean-American"? RachelTensions (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's implying that the subject has confirmed legal status whereas "Korean-American" doesn't confirmed their legal status which is also why it wasn't written as "[South] Korean-American" even if North Korea exists. A Korean person born in France might have Korean nationality, even if they don't hold French citizenship. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)10:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess the comparison is that "Korean-American" could be ambiguous with ethnicity, and "South Korean and American" could be ambiguous with citizenship?like I suggested before, if you're open to it, we could get a third opinion from WP:3O RachelTensions (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no current country called Korea but it is an ethnicity that covers the people of both North Korea and South Korea. Korean-American is purely an ethnicity tag and doesn't belong per MOS:ETHNICITY. The only way to correctly state this person's dual nationality is "American and South Korean". This applies to every modern bio article where Korea(n) without a "North" or "South" specified. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if your read the entire discussion but anyway, what I'm concerned about using "American and South Korean" here is that we're implying that she has "confirmed" legal status of American citizenship and also South Korean citizenship. Even if you were to argue that she is born in America hence she is considered as American and/or she inherit South Korean citizenship because her parents is South Korean or vice versa, there is no proper and actual of determining the legality status. And also, I'm not confusing it as ethnicity tag or term or whatever and I'm not saying IAR on ETHNICITY (not sure why on earth MOS:ETHNICITY redirect there but anyway, that's not the point) which I know that "Korean-American" applies as well, in addition to referring to nationality. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)07:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned earlier, there's no difference between South Korean nationality and South Korean citizenship: South Korea is not a country that confers citizenship rights to only certain forms of nationality. If the subject is a South Korean national, she is a South Korean citizen. See: Nationality#Nationality in context, Citizenship of South Korea#Nationality Law If your argument is that we're not sure of her status then references to her "Korean" nationality should be removed from the article entirely, because if we're not sure of her citizenship then, by extension, we're not sure of her Korean nationality. RachelTensions (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that before this discussion already but did it and/or does it resolves the concerns. So far you kept on preaching this and that which I deemed as "merry-go-round". In fact, the same can be said for American citizenship also while Birthright citizenship in the United States, that's a thing called "voluntarily give up". Also, since you're so in loved with following MOS:NATIONALITY, do you happened to know that MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES exists, and no this isn't an essay. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)07:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES absolutely exists. So if you're so opposed using to the guideline at WP:NATIONALITY, then an acceptable compromise would be to use the term "South Korean-American" because it is less ambiguous with the ethnicity and "South Korean" is the proper adjectival to describe a South Korean national.FWIW, the article already states: "She holds dual citizenship in the United States and South Korea." per this source. RachelTensions (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I usually stay out of these discussions and go with the resulting consensus since just reading all of the above already does my head in, but since I was specifically prompted; my personal opinion is that the lead should preferably carry the confirmed nationalities of the subject. A good example of this is John Oliver; British by birth, and (confirmed) naturalized American by choice, he is British and American. However, if dual nationality is not conclusively confirmedn, and the ethnicity of the subject is relevant to their notability, then using the double-barreled style of Korean-American would be my preferred go-to. So in the case of Jessica Jung, her American nationality is confirmed, but I'm not sure about her Korean nationality, so "Korean-American" should be used until the latter can be confirmed. This largely my personal opinion, I think the MOS on this are woefully inadequate to properly cover the matter at hand. And to add; every article I looked at for research uses a different style. Tiffany Young: "American singer-songwriter of Korean descent"; Jay Kim: "Korean-American politician"; Young Kim: "South Korean-born American politician and businesswoman"; Michelle Steel: "American politician".DragonFury (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you're bringing up is a whole different can of worms that goes further than the way their lead sentence is worded.I believe what you're referring to is when we can "assume" someone's nationality/citizenship from deduction based the laws of the involved countries, which is what we've done at Jessica Jung and Sunny (singer), and also why Young Kim is worded the way it is (because per South Korean nationality law, "South Koreans residing abroad who voluntarily acquire a foreign nationality automatically have their ROK citizenship revoked").If dual nationality is not conclusively confirmedn, and the ethnicity of the subject is relevant to their notability, then using the double-barreled style of Korean-American would be my preferred go-to.If that's the case then referring to someone as "Korean-American" in their lead would still be ambiguous; if we're specifically trying to not imply the possibility of them being a dual citizen because we don't have the sources to back it up, but we want to include reference to their ethnicity because it's relevant to their notability, then the wording should be "XXX (born XXX), is an American singer of Korean descent" (such as what is done at Tiffany Young). RachelTensions (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add a point to my own previous comment: "South Korean" should never be used to refer to a person's ethnicity, it's a purely a descriptor of citizenship/nationality (same for North Korean). DragonFury (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, country1-country2 should never be used. If notable in both countries use country1 and country2. For adjectives the one before the hyphen modifies the second. When order is reversed the meaning changes. Not so when "and" is used which gives equal weight.
Ethnicity is very seldom important to why a person is notable which is why MOS:ETHNICITY says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability". What is important to a person's notability is their nationality and what they accomplished, not who their ancestors were. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should defer to what the MOS says ("country1 and country2"), but "country1-country2" is a fine (although less than ideal) wording if it is presented unambiguously: South Korean-American is relatively unambiguous; a reader could only reasonably infer that we mean they're a citizen of both countries, whereas Korean-American is not unambiguous - a reader could reasonably interpret it it in multiple ways. RachelTensions (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So just to summarize where I believe the discussion currently stands:
4 participants in the discussion are supporting using "Country1 and Country2" (ex. American and South Korean)
2 participants in the discussion are supporting using "Country1-Country2" (ex. Korean-American)
Of these two options, currently one person from each "side" have agreed to a compromise between the two options: modifying "Korean-American" to be "South Korean-American".So, where do we go from here? RachelTensions (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with the compromise hyphenated form, and I think there is sufficient support for "South Korean and American" or "American and South Korean" to change to that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just as a comment, she's done nothing notable in the US, so generally American wouldn't be listed in the intro or SD as not relevant to notability. Issue for another time and not worth arguing now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say I have no strong preference either way, esp if both forms are somewhat ambiguous. MOS:CONTEXTBIO does seem to prefer nationality rather than ethnicity though. It's funny that her nationality being American probably is a stronger case of notability in the Kpop music scene.Evaders99 (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess we've come to the consensus that "South Korean and American" is most appropriate. The change has already been made on this article; I'm also going to make the change on Jessica Jung and Sunny (singer) unless someone chimes in; those articles are similar situations to this one. RachelTensions (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
