Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Wording of dual citizenship in lead sentences

Latest comment: 2 months ago23 comments4 people in discussion

I'm hoping we can crack open a discussion and come to a consensus on how dual citizenship should be conveyed in the lead sentences of articles that fall under the purview of this project.

There are several articles that introduce subjects that are dual citizens as, for example, "Korean-American".

Example: Chrystal Soo Jung (Korean: 크리스탈 수정; born October 24, 1994), professionally known as Krystal Jung, is a Korean-American singer and actress

For some reason, people seem opposed to following the guidelines provided at WP:Manual of Style/Biography and immediately revert any effort to bring articles in line with the manual of style.

The guidelines at WP:NATIONALITY specifically say that the following format should be used in cases of dual nationality:

Chrystal Soo Jung (Korean: 크리스탈 수정; born October 24, 1994), professionally known as Krystal Jung, is an American and South Korean singer and actress

I'd propose that we amend the WP:K manual of style to codify that we use that format as well, for the following reasons:

Describing somebody as "Country1 and Country2" instead of "Country1-Country2" is the guideline as set out at WP:MOSBIO. This should put this to rest.

But also:

Identifying someone as "Korean-American" is ambiguous. To many people, seeing the phrase "Korean-American" would mean somebody from the United States who is of Korean ethnicity. Not somebody who is dual citizen of the two countries. Example: Margaret Cho, Daniel Dae Kim and Juju Chang are Korean-Americans.
- This is underscored by the fact that, in many cases, the article for Korean Americans is wiklinked in the lead sentences when referring to their nationalities, even though that article is specifically for Americans of Korean ethnicity.

Identifying somebody as "Korean" is doubly ambiguous because "Korean" in and of itself is not an adjective that describes a nationality, per List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations. The correct adjectives to describe people of these countries are "South Korean" and "North Korean".

As far as I'm concerned there are no reasons we should WP:Ignore all rules and disregard WP's manual of style guidelines in these cases.

So, can we come to an agreement to follow the manual of style here so that we don't have to get into an argument on every talk page for articles that are corrected to bring them into line with the guidelines? RachelTensions (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Not again. Having been through tons of nationality dispute discussions relating to South Korean BLP entertainers, guidelines being scope creeped is why dispute started everytime. Examples in guidelines are simply just an illustration in the end, it may or may not apply for all cases, and there's never catch-all example. Also, English Wikipedia rely on what reliable sources are saying explicitly and they rarely (if not never for most cases) states "X and Y" in their writing, it's always "X-Y" hence why there're more "X-Y" IAR usages. Personally, I don't see how "X-Y" is "incorrect". For "Korean-American", wikilinking collectively to Korean Americans is incorrect as I see it given that that article wasn't written for such currently, maybe it was previously. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say any guidelines are being scope creeped given that WP:MOSBIO makes it pretty clear that dual nationalities should be written as X and Y because X-Y could be viewed as ambiguous.

Also, English Wikipedia rely on what reliable sources are saying explicitly and they rarely (if not never for most cases) states "X and Y" in their writing, it's always "X-Y" hence why there're more "X-Y" IAR usages.
I'm not sure this argument really holds water; if we're taking sources explicitly as written then no sources that just use X-Y should be considered valid to assert dual citizenship in the first place. For example, PBS The Guardian, South China Morning Post, Time Magazine et al. describe Margaret Cho as Korean-American but that doesn't mean she's of dual nationality. RachelTensions (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I did specifically stated "Examples in guidelines are simply just an illustration in the end, it may or may not apply for all cases, and there's never catch-all example" when talking about guidelines. As for Cho, I haven't personally heard of this subject till today hence I cannot really comment on that since I'm not familiar with this subject however sources do indicates her "a Korean [i.e.] American". Maybe in the State, they have different way of writing/implying, I don't know because I don't edit State-related BLP articles that isn't active in South Korea entertainment industry hence I can't comment in relationship to the word/term "Korean-American" for the other side of the world. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, here are some people active in South Korean entertainment industry being described as "X-Y" in reliable sources:

NME and Rolling Stone describing Felix (rapper) as Korean-Australian
Time and NME describing Joshua (singer) and Vernon (rapper) as Korean-American
Korea JoongAng Daily describing Eric Nam as Korean-American

None of the above are known to be dual citizens. "X-Y" is ambiguous. RachelTensions (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

In terms of citizenship, only Joshua and Vernon are applicable to be written as "Korean-American" here as there are sufficient evidence to support dual nationality based on reliable sources and as per South Korean nationality law. "X-Y" especially for "Korean-American" may be ambiguous for some because of context and interpretation, I wouldn't called "Canadian-American" ambiguous or questioned it to being with. But I do see the point that you're trying to make here however I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing as I have been there done that to see that IAR (existing consensus, dispute resolution, etc) applies on case-to-case basis. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't called "Canadian-American" ambiguous or questioned it to being with.

Canadian-American isn't ambiguous because "Canadian" and "American" aren't generally viewed as ethnicities; they are considered nationalities almost exclusively. Even still, most articles on Canadian and American dual citizens use "X and Y", such as Alanis Morissette, Neil Young, Jim Carrey, Michael J. Fox, Eric McCormack, etc. Because this is what is prescribed in WP:MOSBIO. RachelTensions (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

As stated, IAR still applies on case-to-case basis due to existing consensus, dispute resolution middleground, etc. Hence, a hardline sledgehammer wouldn't apply for all if that's what you're trying to eliminate as your rationale and subsequent reply suggested no compromise including overwriting existing non-community (article talk's level) consensus because that's what the current guidelines as of this comment stated so. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you're confusing what I'm suggesting... IAR would be ignoring the prescribed guideline in WP:MOSBIO. WP:MOSBIO says to use "X and Y".

Any article that uses "X-Y" is already applying IAR for no good reason. RachelTensions (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused. I'm actually addressing on IAR portion that you're suggesting to eliminate. I had also addressed "applying IAR for no good reason" twice at last sentence on my reply at 12:57 and 1st sentence of my reply at 13:14. For you to not be confused, I'm not saying that we IAR on MOSBIO for everything, you can still BOLDly change those that isn't disputed before in the article lifespan. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

IAR is an exception and requires a good reason documented in the article talk page and supported by discussion consensus (can be implied if the topic is raised and not disputed) to justify why it is important to ignore some policy or guideline. Bringing an article into conformance is usually not contested unless there is a very good documented reason not to. I am also surprised that WP Korea permits "Korea" to be used as a synonym to "South Korea" as that looks to be taking sides in a contested political issue which we should not be doing on Wikipedia. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW equating "Korea" with "South Korea" is not a universal (or even really that common) practice on WPK. I've edited probably over a thousand pages to clarify "South Korea" when only "Korea" was provided, but even then they were usually one-offs paired with poor grammar otherwise. But on the vast majority of pages I feel we do a fine job of clarifying South Korea. seefooddiet (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I found about 190 where only Korea was used in bio articles. Might want to update those. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't check the context to see whether or not Korea was used as a nationality or ethnicity in that search. If nationality it should be changed to the proper Korea with "and" instead of "-", if ethnicity it shouldn't be in article per MOS:ETHNICITY. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't be in the lead* it can be in the body of the article. seefooddiet (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The personal life section of a bio article is usually where it is covered. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Some of us have been trying to update them but there's a lot of WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING reversions from people opposed to following the manual of style because they "don't see the issue". RachelTensions (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; "Korean" is pretty much exclusively an ethnicity, not a nationality, given there are no nations called "Korea". Furthermore, the proper adjectival form of "South Korea" is "South Korean".

Using "Korean" would probably be acceptable if there were only one country that it could possibly refer to, such as is the case with using "Macedonian" for people from North Macedonia, but that's not the case here. RachelTensions (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think "American and South Korean" is more appropriate than "Korean-American", per the reasoning provided by Geraldo Perez here. seefooddiet (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Once this is decided, I think it may be worth clarifying in MOS:KO. Saves us the future debates. RachelTensions want to put it in somewhere? seefooddiet (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the process, I'll let you handle it if you're willing once we come to a consensus.

I think it'd be best if we brought the conversation to a more central place though... right now the conversation is primarily at Talk:Krystal Jung but it seems the conversation has pivoted to a more generalized discussion on the subject, not pertaining to that article in-specific... can someone help me with the best practice for moving the conversation over here? RachelTensions (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW I think most of the 190-ish (or however many articles there are, I know that number is inflated) where just "Korean" is used could be fixed without any contention or pushback... it's the more popular articles and articles where people have an emotional investment (read: K-pop idols & other celebrities) that seem to have contention. RachelTensions (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Just post a notice on where you want the rest of the conversation to take place. seefooddiet (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)