Talk:Min Hee-jin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Adding her birthday.

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

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

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: 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

Dispute with Hybe section

With the dispute still ongoing it seems to me like particular care of this section is needed. In the current state the section has a mix of a timeline feeling while at the same time being each day more and more incomplete. I am not for listing every step, at the contrary I think that the two main parts involved should be represented better in a more distinct fashion. Min Hee-Jin position is unclear, there's a repetition regarding the difficulty to get Hybe control, and the accusation of ILLIT copying take way more space then the rest. On Hybe side there's an even more misterious tone since reading the paragraph doesn't really give any insight on their relationship and actions beside the audit. If nobody takes a shot at it I'll try to work on it when I'll have time in the next few days. Please instead of randomly reverting it if you find something unsourced or badly written tag it appropriately and come discuss it here first! Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The reverts weren't "random", all material about living persons that are unsourced or poorly sourced are to be removed immediately without discussion per WP:BLPSOURCE. Keep that in mind the next time you're adding information to this page. Thanks 「HypeBoy」^TALK 02:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Your reverts were random. You reverted sourced informations about 1) the origin of her movie influences 2) the lyrics of the track cookie 3) the school girl outfits.

Please avoid doing so in the future in other sections as with the dispute with hybe. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

1. You wrote "minors in age of consent" which were not stated in any of the sources. 2. You wrote that Min Hee-jin "deleted" her instagram pictures which were not stated in any of the sources. 3. The info about f(x) and NewJeans having a lolita concept were already there, which made your edit unnecessary. My point stands, for your future edits, either put a reliable source for ALL your edits or don't edit at all, because like I said, unsourced edits in biographies of living persons are to be removed without discussion. 「HypeBoy」^TALK 19:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

1) "minors in age of consent" is literally the age we are talking about regarding the movies she shared. Is "pedophilia" better just because the source, who is just copy pasting twitter talks, wrote it? You do realize it makes it only more libellous?

2) If you accept the first source that comment about those pictures of her appartment then you have to accept that Min Hee-Jin deleted them. They are not on her current instagram.

3) Lolita concept doesn't mean anything. It is a vague slander category that should be avoided. I added a precise reference to what is the topic discussed and that gave the whole section a more neutral and factual tone.

You should indeed discuss all of this into a talk page. We are even in the wrong section now.

Again, the Hybe Dispute section needs a rewrite as well since in the current state it is unclear for both parties involved. Discuss it instead of reverting it. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I went on with the idea to not follow a strict timeline for the first paragraph and rewrote it. I still think that there should be two other paragraphs that more clearly develop Hybe position and Min Hee-Jin position and plan to write them as soon as I will have the time.

I am still not sure that a full timeline of events couldn't have been better, but since nobody discussed it on the talk page I went on with my idea. There should be an introduction for these other two sections that explains how this tensions has been boiling up for months, if not years.

What hybe section should include: embezzlement accusation, fair treatement to all the groups, shaman stuff, discussing with other investors (one of them tipped hybe) etc

What Min HeeJin section should include: unfair treatement with le sserafim debut, hybe exec copying general concept with illit plus details, unfair value of the stock options, independence of ADOR communications regarding new jeans etc Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I also wanted to add that the last phrase of the section, the one regarding Min Hee-Jin chats against new jeans members and fans, should be completelly scrapped. I don't understand how a snippet of a private conversation with random insults, real or not, relates to any of the matters discussed. It's not that I find it defamatory but it is completelly not relevant, not worth of an encyclopedia, and ultimatelly takes space that is badly needed to discuss the topics that are not currently developed. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

User@Pauline_Muley has fully reverted the edits because they are "contentious" "unnecessarily verbose" and made by a "single purpouse account".

- I don't have the time to focus on other articles right now, but I did edit other pages as well.

- How were the edits contentious? On the current form there are private Min chats being linked. That is not contentious?

- How were they verbose since they helped establish more preciselly the general context? The current formulation is vague. For exemple it doesn't explain why the court favored Min on the injunction.

They also reverted an edit on Min work on Hybe building that was fully sourced with an official youtube video by hybe claiming that Youtube it is not a reliable source. An official video by Hybe is not reliable?

I am proceeding to restore small edits, make the phrasing more precise and add elements to the timeline. I hope that there will not be any more full reversions without coming to discuss it first. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The last phrase which highlighted support of the New Jeans member Danielle to Min Hee-Jin was deleted by user Btspurplegalaxy. I understand that it could be considered "Original research" since no major publication discussed it. It is worth noting that highlighting artists position is not seen lightlty is South Korea after the numerous suicides in the industry.

I will not proceede to restore it but I urge people that modify the page to discuss it in the talk page as well. Isn't the connection between NewJeans and Min Hee-Jin central to the whole conflict? Multiple journalists have asked about it in both press conferences. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Context about another reversion, the info about the other executives being dismissed by hybe being relevant/irrelevant.

One of them is targeted by the same breach of trust procedure that Hybe started on the 25th of April and both are crucial to the whole story. They wrote the notes presented by Hybe as evidence, the kakao talk messages, and were also mentioned multiple times by Min lawyers and by Min herself. Their dismissal also grants Hybe the majority in future ADOR internal voting that could, hypothetically, dismiss Min. Which was also a concern raised on Min second press conference.

Don't revert edits you don't understand. If they are not clear try to improve them. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Final touches

Thanks to @HypeBoy a few final touches were done for readability.

I think the section is in good shape now. Since the dust mostly settled (for now) I just want to highlight a few choices that were done, some I agree some I don't. Some easy to improve some not.

- chronological timeline. I personally don't think this is a good choice from the perspective of a reader trying to understand the conflict. One of the best articles that help summarize it is non chronological, it gives proper space to both parties and it is easier to read. https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2024-04-26/culture/features/No-two-queen-bees-in-a-HYBE-The-claims-accusations-rebuttals-so-far/2034645 But I do understand that in such a conflictual page, multiple people reverting edits and not discussing it etc, it is extremelly hard to agree on a non chronological summary style writing.

- minor info left out. We are not mentioning at all the shaman ad embezzlement stuff that Hybe discussed. I think that this is a good choice since even for them this was a minor thing compared to taking control of ADOR or the later mentioning publicly other groups. Both issues were mentioned by the court and ruled out in favor of Min.

- major info left out. One of the major things that Min kept mentioning over and over, down until the last press conference, is the non compete clause on the shareholder agreement. Hybe responded that money was what Min really wanted during negotiations. I think this is one important point and will probably keep emerging later on. It should be added. I just had lost the source for Hybe saying that it was all money motivated so I let it slip. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)