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 sourced must 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. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
When references are used more than once, they are given a "ref name=article name" so that they are displayed up as "a,b,c ARTICLE" in the reference section to show that the same reference is being used more than once. Do not continue to revert to the improper style. Also, article needs more references to cite statements per guidelines WP:CITE. There are various usage of peacock words, especially in the opening paragraph. Please find reliable sources to back such statements. If you wish to remove the templates, find more sources and correct the language. Cheers, oncamera(t) 03:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colleen, why do you keep removing the Intersections link? It's a peer-reviewed journal article (areliable source) about cute South Korean men which mentions Lee Jun Ki. --Malkinann (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed certain information from the intro because I thought it sounded too much like an opinion, not a fact, and could not be reliably sourced. I also moved the information about his language skills and martial arts abilities further down since he is not really known for these things. Since the article is being more sourced, I will suggest using a Reference maker to make the references uniformed throughout the article. I will start moving the current references to this system. One final thing, I think his Biography section is a little long and could use more HEADERS to divide the article into a more organized manner. Once again, I removed the Twitter account because it hasn't been verified nor is it significant. Just because a certain editor here thinks they know everything being a fanclub member doesn't mean Wikipedia will accept that sort of of verification. Thanks, oncamera(t) 16:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went through copyedited, reformatted references, added fact/citation needed to places that should be sourced. Also removed/replaced references that cited blogs per WP:V. Removed "Fan Meetings and Concerts, Sawasdee Khrab Photobook" sections because they aren't significant and really only matter to a small percentage of people aka "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question" via WP:Fancruft. If there was anything other editors find was important from those section, please find a way to write it into other parts of the articles. Those two sections should not go into such details as they are almost longer than his Career section. oncamera(t) 18:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because Lee Jun Ki is a living person, we have to get the article right, for his protection. --Malkinann (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you guys want to add things and I also know I don't own the article. I am usually not like that but I have been contributing majorly to this article and to have random editors just suddenly pop up and completely change the article was just inappropriately striking. JKSarang has also contributed greatly to this article and no one had a single problem with the edits up until now. I don't mind adding maintenance tags and I don't mind adding information and so forth. But what you guys did was wrong. You should have consulted myself, JKSarang or any other major contributor first. Put yourselves in my or our shoes. How would you feel if you had an article that you edited for quite sometime and took pride in and random editors popped up out of nowhere and changed over your entire article, your favourite article I might add. I am trying to follow the rules but if you are going to be difficult then I would like my contributions removed and JKSarang said the same thing. We have actually given this article more than just words, meaning photos as well. We, well JKSarang has connections and asked some of our groups members, also outsiders to contribute to this article. Now I am willing to come up with some sort of an agreement with you all, because right now you have turned it back into how it used to be, very scattered and with less information. I was willing to take the time to find all the references for Ophois until I saw this huge unnecessary change. To me the previous version of the article was a lot neater with not so many sections. It seemed to me that JKSarang sectioned off those parts for a specific reasons. Before I said okay fine let them add those maintenance tags but you have taken it too far this time. So if you have suggestions push them this way, okay. But for now I honestly think that the article should be reverted back to it's previous state and then you can add what you think is needed to be added. Wikipedia is almost free, right. We all have our opinions so lets discuss and come to an agreement. I have already stated mine so now lets hear yours. Colleen16 (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an outsider to this dispute, I suggest that mediation might be useful here. LadyofShalott 19:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, there is disagreement among a few editors over the current version being more "suitable" than the former? (( Diff to compare the two versions )) There have been instances of edit warring; Recent discussions show two editors feel they have contributed largely to the former version of the article and do not like the recent changes. Comments and thoughts are appreciated. oncamera(t) 23:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will copy paste this from the discussion section Intro, sections, etc and would like thoughts on why the recent changes were or were not appropriate to make according to policies and guidelines.
I removed certain information from the intro because I thought it sounded too much like an opinion, not a fact, and could not be reliably sourced. I also moved the information about his language skills and martial arts abilities further down since he is not really known for these things. Since the article is being more sourced, I will suggest using a Reference maker to make the references uniformed throughout the article. I will start moving the current references to this system. One final thing, I think his Biography section is a little long and could use more HEADERS to divide the article into a more organized manner. Once again, I removed the Twitter account because it hasn't been verified nor is it significant. Just because a certain editor here thinks they know everything being a fanclub member doesn't mean Wikipedia will accept that sort of of verification.
I went through copyedited, reformatted references, added fact/citation needed to places that should be sourced. Also removed/replaced references that cited blogs per WP:V. Removed "Fan Meetings and Concerts, Sawasdee Khrab Photobook" sections because they aren't significant and really only matter to a small percentage of people aka "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question" via WP:Fancruft. If there was anything other editors find was important from those section, please find a way to write it into other parts of the articles. Those two sections should not go into such details as they are almost longer than his Career section.
It's true the former version had sources, but the majority of those sources stayed intact (I even added more or changed ones to English that provided the same information as the replaced ones). The information removed, as stated above, was appearing as fancruft and it has been suggested a number of times to include any of the deleted text into the Career section of the article if properly sourced. That isn't asking for anything much. This all seems to be an issue of WP:OWNERSHIP more than a content dispute. oncamera(t) 02:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a relatively uninvolved editor, I thought I would bring my view.
I say "relatively uninvolved" - my involvement so far has been twofold:
I have spent over an hour looking at both versions of the article in detail, and I am going to analyse my findings. Please note that my intent here is not to find out who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'. I am looking at the article as a new reader (I know nothing about Lee Jun Ki), and the experience that a reader looking for information will have.
Please note that when I refer to the "new" version, I am referring to the 'current' version as linked to at the top of this RfC - I am not looking at changes since that version.
Analysis by Phantomsteve |
---|
Lead section[edit]
Biographical sections[edit]
Dispute With Mentor Entertainment[edit]I feel that the newer version is more encyclopedic (for example 'Lee Jun Ki became embroiled in a contractual dispute with his agency Mentor Entertainment' sounds less neutral than 'Lee had a contractual dispute with his agency Mentor Entertainment'). Again, all the information is retained, but the newer version is "tighter" and more encyclopedic in tone. Ambassador[edit]The new title is more accurate. The old title would give a new reader (as it did me when I first read it) the impression that Lee acted as an Ambassador, who "is the highest ranking diplomat who represents their country", which is not the case. Again, all the information that is required is retained, but without the additional information which isn't relevant to this article. 'Fan Meetings and Concerts' and 'Sawasdee Khrab Photobook'[edit]The 'Fan Meetings and Concerts' section is totally unencylopedic as far as I am concerned. If it had been referenced with reliable sources, it might merit a minor mention (a sentence or two), but as this is entirely unsourced, and reads like it is the entry on a fansite, I think that it was right that the content was removed. With regard to 'Sawasdee Khrab Photobook', I would have said that perhaps it might merit a single-sentence mention (definitely not a paragraph though) - but I cannot find evidence that it is a notable book. I found a couple of Press Releases about it, but that was about the extent of the coverage (apart from the allkpop.com reference - and I am not certain how reliable a source that site is). On the whole, I agree that it should not be present - if it receives further coverage in the future, from reliable sources, it can always be re-added as a couple of sentences. Discography etc[edit]With the exception of the "citations needed" templates, these are identical. I agree that citations are required for the "TV Commercials" and "Awards" sections. Gallery[edit]I think the old version had too many pictures in the Gallery. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries states The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.. I feel that the old Gallery did not meet this expectation, whereas the new one does. External links[edit]From what I can see, there is no independent verification that the Twitter account is the one used by Lee. There are only 6 tweets on it, and there appears to be no mention of it on either his management's website or his own. Until such time as there is some reliable source of information showing that this is indeed the account used by Lee, it is correct that the link is removed. |
Phantomsteve's summary |
---|
Summary[edit]First of all, I would like to commend all the parties for the work they have done on this article. Without all of you, this article would not be as good as it is now. On to my summary... The content of the two versions is near enough the same - however, the newer version is "tighter", more encyclopedic and more logically laid out. The parts that have been removed added no particular value to the article as a whole, and were generally unencyclopedic. As I mentioned above, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. As a reader (and at the end of the day, that is who we should be considering, not what the editors think), I feel that the new version is more welcoming, and easier to both navigate and read, as a result of good sectioning, smaller sections and smaller paragraph lengths. |
Phantomsteve's recommendations |
---|
Recommendations[edit]My recommendations to all parties: move on. Keep the article in the newer format, and work together constructively to continue to improve the article. I see no reason why this should not achieve "GA" status in the near future, and then you can see if you can all get it to "A" or even "FA" status! My recommendation to InkHeart and JKSarang (and to a lesser extent 69dressings): work with the other editors to continue to improve the article. Remember, no editor (or group of editors) own articles. If you want to add to the article, make sure that you have reliable sources - and I would also advise you to discuss any additions/changes on this talk page, to reach a concensus before you do it. My recommendation to oncamera (and to a lesser extent Malkinann and Ωphois): work with the other editors to continue to improve the article. I feel that before you made the amendments in layout, etc, it would have been polite to have discussed it on this talk page beforehand. As I have said, I feel that the improvements were correct - but it would have been good to have made a mention of your proposed changes before hand, and I can't see anything in the history that would indicate that this was done. Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
And you see that's all fine and dandy but this should have all been mentioned before the article was changed. That is my point. Even though people can never "own" an article, it is still important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor, it is often more effective to try to work with the editor, instead of against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article. (See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.) - own As for this - There is no rule against being the primary or sole editor of an article, provided that contributions and input from fellow editors is not ignored and/or immediately disregarded. Some articles have few (or one) main contributors. Being the primary editor does not equal ownership so long as the primary editor allows views of other editors. I am with it cause I am not trying to claim an article. And as to 69dressins is talking about I think she/he is just angry right now. But the strange thing about this is I bet if this was to be done to another editor's article, an editor who has been around longer than I have and is more experienced it would be reverted back and the challenged editor would have been blocked. I mean yes I am weak editor, due to me not knowing the rules, but at the same time it doesn't mean that I should have to sit here and wait for a decision from another editor who hasn't even discussed any of these changes with me and has insulted me as well. I won't stand for it. I have tried to be nice about all of the tagging and following my edits but I don't think I am going to play nice anymore. Because this is getting to be ridiculous. Everyone tells me to discuss it, discuss it, discuss it, yet the other editor doesn't and none of my opinions matter in anything. And that's why stuck with this article because there weren't any editors to disrupt the edits and if i had questions I would ask. And I do.
As for Steve's analysis I never ever really had taken out a lot of the information, from before i started editing this article. I left almost everything in place. I only changed the style of the article and added information to it.
InkHeart's analysis |
---|
Lead section[edit]Most of the lead section was here before I began editing the article. This was added in Lee also became quite popular for his noble role as Ryung in the 2008 action, romance drama Iljimae. In August 2009, Lee Jun Ki was appointed an ambassador for Korea tourism by the Korea Tourism Organization. In Taipei on September 26, Lee Jun Ki's busy schedule took him westwards towards Bangkok, Thailand, where he attended the launch of his new photo book, Sawasdee Khrab released in September 2009. Which is significant recent information. Iljimae was extremely popular in 2008 as said in the news. ambassador of tourism technically began for Lee in 2008 and the photobook was actually very important to him and his fans. And to disregard his fans in Thailand is insulting because that's where a majority of his fans live. Lee is very caring about his fans and that is what makes he so uniquely popular in Korea, his relationship with his fans. And his fan meetings and photobook is a reflection of all of that. A biography is suppose to contain all the important stages and influences of a person's life and his fan meetings are of that. Biographical sections[edit]Where on Wikipedia does it say a section of a persons life has to be a certain amount of lines? So if a person has a long history you would deleted some of it because a paragraph is too long? If you wanted to section of the Biography part you could have put Biography, then Early years, then Career. The King and the clown section is fine cause it's big enough to have its own section. Overseas popularity should have included the fan meetings and photobook seeing that those were also major influences and events in his life. The sections for the fan meetings and photobook could be cut down to fit into it seeing that they are long on there own. As for this I don't understand what this means? The paragraphs are lengthy, and as a newcomer it looks intimidating. Intimidating to whom? Cause if you actually compare the previous version to the current one they are practically the same height just with more sections. Return to Korea doesn't seem like a good section because after Iljimae he went to Tokyo to promote Iljimae in Japan. And where do editors continue to write about him? Everything seems out of place somehow. In the previous version under the Biography section you could have continued writing in that section 3, whereas the other sections were only for particular areas of his life. In the current version where can we continue to write about him. In the Return to Korea section?4 Dispute With Mentor Entertainment[edit]Fine Ambassador[edit]Fine 'Fan Meetings and Concerts' and 'Sawasdee Khrab Photobook'[edit]It is quite meaningful considering his significant relationship with his fans and that is what he is known for. As a reader, not a fan, I would want to read about this because the fans are what gave him courage to keep moving up. They take a significant part in his life. You can ask anyone who knows about him. is totally unencylopedic Encyclopedic means covering a wide range of knowledge; comprehensive / pertaining to or of the nature of an encyclopedia; relating to all branches of knowledge. And that information did just that as explained above. Right now the only significant information in his article is the "The King and Clown, Ambassador and I guess Overseas Popularity. Which in his life isn't everything. And this section was sourced but the links were undone by someone. 1 A majority of his fans are in Thailand (the other is China) he even has his own personal fan club there. So the photobook covers that. Allkpop wasn't the only source given in that section.2 And it is a DVD photobook, a DVD that comes with a photobook. Discography etc[edit]I think you mean Filmography. But it's fine. Gallery[edit]This is fine as well. There was non-free images used in it which goes against Wiki rules. External links[edit]As for this there were news posts about Lee posting his Twitter link on his Cyworld account but they cannot be found now, nor the link on his Cy-hompy, because the pages move down after a certain period of time. So it would be like finding a needle in a hay stack. His twitter is irrelevant to this article. TWITTER has NOT even verified his account. Anyone could be masquerading in it; forum posts and blog posts are not reliable sources. Also, the account isn't active and has little significance, so why should it be allowed to break the WP:ELNO guideline? It shouldn't. If you would like, we can go about removing Cyworld links too. The twitter was verified by lee himself and i have posted links to prove it. And not just any random links either some of those fan links are to reliable fansites cause they are in contact with the actor. And others were just news. But it can stay removed seeing that it is irrelevant to the article. InkHeart♥ 19:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
I found this article when I was reading the Intersections journal and noticed the mention of the actor in the journal. I looked him up and added it to the article in the lead. Colleen (who is also InkHeart) removed it a couple of times. I then invited her to put it in another place of the article, and she put the bare reference in the article, without the information from the reference, so it looked as if the Intersections journal was saying something it wasn't - that the actor has tried to diminish his pretty boy image, rather than simply the actor had a pretty boy image due to the film. As you can see in #Intersections above, Colleen did not appear to understand that a reference needs to be next to the information from that reference, thinking it was enough that both references were talking about the pretty boy image. As Colleen is a prolific contributor to this article, I'm concerned that although the article appears to have inline references, that they may not actually support the information given in the article. As I can't read Korean, I can't check the references listed myself. Because of the verifiability problem, I am furthermore concerned that the article may contravene the biographies of living people policy, which requires stricter adherence to verifiability, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. As BLP states "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.", when others cut down the article significantly, I felt it was probably for the best, and left a short note to that effect on the article talk page. I also joined Ophois in requesting citations on the Awards section, as awards are important to articles about actors, and incidentally the commercials section. I also had a short exchange with Oncamera when we accidentally edit conflicted. --Malkinann (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing this to separate out the continuing commentary from involved users, and to get some kind of readable RfC process going.
User:Caspian blue recently moved this page to "Lee Jun Ki (actor)" when I feel it's better to create a "Lee Jun Ki (disambiguation)" for other uses and return this article to "Lee Jun Ki". Reasons: The actor is much more notable than Lee Jun-Ki (football player). Most searchers of Lee Jun Ki will be searching for the actor. Also, the stub-class quality of Lee Jun-Ki (football player) (basically one sentence there). Anyone else have an opinion on the bold move? oncamera(t) 05:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commercials were removed due to no sources, does that mean other info should be removed too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.108.148 (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Jun Ki → Lee Jun-ki – This is the given name in a Korean name and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Given name reads in part If there is no personal preference, and no established English spelling, hyphenate the syllables, with only the first syllable capitalized Orangecandi (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: page moved. The subject changed his name, reliable sources since then appear to be using it, therefore WP:COMMONNAME suggests a move is in order. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC) ~Amatulić (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Jun-ki → Lee Joon-gi – According to his official website http://www.leejoongi.co.kr/ and Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc (set up since being discharged from military services in February 2012 with new management agency), he has romanized his name as 'Lee Joon-gi'. He was credited as 'Lee Jun-ki' by news outlets prior to that but most have since changed over: CJ E&M enewsWorld, Star News, 10 Asia, Yonhap News, The Korea Times, Joongang Daily, Korea Herald and Korea Tourism Organization in 2009. Though Chosun Ilbo still used the old name in August 2012, but that was on a caption for a photo call so might not have been checked by a reporter, and MBC Global Media in September 2012. Others such as The Dong-A Ilbo and The Hankyoreh have not reported anything on him in either name since 2007; and Korea Tourism Organization also used 'Lee Jun-ki' in 2007, but again nothing since February 2012. Therefore it is his personal preference per WP:NC-KO and WP:COMMONNAME usage in reliable sources. Relisted. BDD (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC) --Michaela den (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Lee Joon-gi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article for Lee Joon gi under section heading 2014–present: Domestic flops and North American debut seems negatively overstated. Is the use of the words “flop” and “failure” overstated? Does it express for Wikipedia a NPOV of a living figure? A reader can make a Google Search of Scholar Who Walks The Night. Do the words “flop” and “failure” apply when that search shows ratings for this drama were 9.4 of 10 on Viki, 4.6 of 5 with Drama Fever, 90% on Asiawiki in the Google sidebar? [1]What does that say about our NPOV? It says at minimum the paragraph and header are not providing a complete picture. Does the article only speak to a South Korean audience? Are South Korea television ratings the exclusive standard that decide success for a drama. AGB Neilson believes it does not and is why technology is expanding its market research. Metrics like Brand power and the Consumer Power Index use online determinants like search queries, buzz and online viewer totals to take the pulse of this expanding 21st Century demographic. Should an online encyclopedia ignore that? [2][3]That is what is obvious in a Google search and what shows a different picture than the one reflected by the section write up. That demographic shows Moon Lovers and the subject of this biographical in a positive light and not a failure particular when viewed in light of its intent for an international audience with its post production release ensuring a 60% return through sale of the drama to China. Moon Lovers received the Korean Brand Grand Prize Award for this reason.[4] The drama and no less than the subject of this article ranked at the top of the Consumer Powers Index. That strongly supports why using the terms “flop” and “failure” are not viewed as NPOV by our readers. Can over 2 Billion views on Youku in China be called a failure?[5]Is “drew a more favorable response in other parts of Asia” an understatement? Is our intention to only reflect South Korea or should we also consider a wider audience? These metrics make a good case for why the drama and the subject of this biographical may not be NPOV. Look at South East Asia. Ratings for the drama there were #1 in Malaysia and Singapore. [6] What does this biographical piece say in this section about Lee Joon gi. Does it mention the critical acclaim received by him for the Moon Lovers character of Wang So where even articles critical of the drama praise the acting of Lee Joon gi? [7][8][9][10]If we focus on the flop and failure of Moon Lovers should we mention what caused the South Korean response? There are articles that explored the reasons for the dismal domestic TV ratings and what the artist should do about it. [11] [12] The article seems in conflict when it calls Resident Evil a North American Debut in the headline but a Hollywood debut in the body of the section. The section heading should be consistent. The header should follow the industry and call Resident Evil a Hollywood debut. [13] I would like other opinions as to whether the section carries negative verbiage or if the section should be rewritten. Maris Sefiro (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Thoughts: Thank you for your input. It seems someone has already made some changes to the article and it is an improvement however it is still an incomplete picture. Regardless of personal feelings negative or positive language should whenever possible be avoided which I believe is the intention shown in the language of NPOV and WP-BLP. You have based your use of words that carry a negative connotations on 1 (one) citation while I have provided multiple citations expressing a different view. I believe for balance, and to add interest to the article both the low TV rating and the high international response should be mentioned since the project was originally intended for BOTH markets. Additionally, debut refers not to the size of a role but the industry in which the debut occurs. In this case the companies producing the film Resident Evil: the final chapter are based in Hollywood. Further a citation is given to support the industries use of the term (not mine and not the celebrity). If multiple uses of the term Hollywood debut are needed those can be provided. It is however common language. Maris Sefiro (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request AkoAyMayLobo, I noticed that you once again edited the Lee Joon gi article without having answered the questions that were posed or having reached a consensus about what might be done to offer more balance to the article and provide lasting stability to the topic. As an editor you have no greater authority than I do. Yet from the first your attitude has been to bully, misuse the Wikipedia warning system, be passive aggressive, attribute motives to me based on personal assumption and be dismissive. Please, What do I need to do to get you to follow Wikipedia guidelines? Maris Sefiro (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Agree Thank you so much for adding to the discussion. No one is suggesting cushioning this celebrity. Wikipedia has articles that fully discuss each separate drama, include rankings for each episode. However a Wikipedia article WP-BLP should present a complete picture that focuses on the actor. Both articles you point to are written in Korean without translations provided but they are a discussion on the successes and failures of several South Korean TV projects and not specific to this particular actor. The topic of this article is the celebrity and while some drama may not have been major domestic hits, the personal popularity of the actor did not suffer as the following citations indicate. It is that balance that the article is lacking which is the focus of questions proposed initially. (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Maris Sefiro (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So far comments regarding the revision of this article have focused almost entirely on me being a frustrated fan. Having made that assumption you've closed your minds to the discussion. You've missed the questions raised and the validity of the arguments and citations. Please try to focus on the content and stop relying on personal bias and the misuse of the terms fluff and peacock. Your job is to be an unbiased editor capable of providing neutrality and balance. To understand the need for balance that this article is lacking perhaps you might read the article by Todd Spangler in Variety. [14] It may give a better perspective on the importance of the citations you are ignoring and why tv ratings alone may not be the sole determinant for what constitutes success or failure and why reference to the CPI rankings should be considered. The focus of this article has ignored the subject to focus on the domestic ratings of the work Moon Lovers: Scarlet Heart Ryeo. There is critical acclaim for the actor that has been ignored to present a negative view. For example. a quote in an article by an Lynette Guzman in Australia who has mentioned the actor and not just the drama. In the 5th paragraph the writer says: “Along with the criticism of IU and Baekhyun, Lee Jun Ki received high praises for his acting as the fourth prince.” [15] This is not the only such comment. To find them however one must read the articles and not just the headlines. Maris Sefiro (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again the article has been edited without reaching consensus. Is that the process? I don't think so.Maris Sefiro (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even in an industry whose awards typically reflect the current domestic popularity of a drama or actor, the industry still manages to recognize individual work and talent. It is for that reason that focusing on a drama and not the celebrity in a write up or section heading for that celebrity can create an erroneous impression that damages the celebrity and the integrity of Wikipedia.
The terms fluff or peacock applies to writing formed by opinion. What is not fluff or peacock is writing supported by valid fact of a creditable citation. Preventative editing on the pretext of avoiding fluff and peacock when the term does not apply might be seen to reflect a bias that should not be present in a living biographical.
The imbalance that exists in this article may be an honest effort to keep balance but there are so many edits that have been done to the article that are wrong, one must wonder why? Isn't the risk of invalid edit just as possible from an anti-fan as a fan? For example, in the very first paragraph someone edited the section indicating that the actor rose to fame on a supporting role in the King and the Clown. The role in that film was not a supporting role it was one of 4 (four) staring roles; as is supported not only by the movie's credits but also by Wikipedia's own write up on the film. Supporting roles as defined in the industry are NOT critical to the story and rarely receive staring awards as this one did.
Now that this celebrity has won TWO (2) awards for their most recent work in Moon Lovers Scarlet Heart Ryeo perhaps the section title should say Continuing Awards rather than lowly rated dramas since each of the referenced dramas won awards in spite of lower than desired domestic ratings. Doesn't the reference made to lowly rated dramas ignore balance when it is the focus and not the kudos gained by the actor? Also the correction to show the accurate use of Hollywood debut seems indicated since that terminology exists in other articles of living actors in Wikipedia. Isn't the intentional effort to avoid that term in favor of Resident Evil an understatement?
At this point unless consensus can be reached perhaps we need to present this for arbitration? Maris Sefiro (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to begin by thanking all editors for their help in revamping the write up in this article. The writeup has been vastly improved with only a few minor corrections remaining. The first is in the first paragraph where it references supporting roles. This is a minor edit based on misunderstanding/misuse of the term supporting role. According to the article cited, [16] “A supporting role is a character who is there to support the main/lead character/s.... sometimes they can be co-lead’s” The difference seems to be in the importance of the role. For example it explains that “a principal actor is one whose role has significant importance to the story” which the Cong gil role has. Lee Joon gi's character in My Girl would be a supporting role or as Kdrama refers to it, a 2nd lead.
The next correction refers to misspelling of the word domestic in the term domestic ratings found under the section 2014–present: Lowly-rated dramas and Resident Evil.
Finally, I sill dispute the 2014 to present section title. The title is somewhat negative in tone...not wrong, just negative, it still focuses too much on the dramas (existing=already cited in other format) and not enough on the actor. For continuity, the section might wish to expand on the existing content for homogeneity (see Overseas Popularity). Despite the lower than hoped for domestic ratings of the dramas of the last few years the actor himself continues to see growing international popularity. Which is supported by the Hallyu Award for 2016 from SBS (existing cite) and the growth of the actors own Instagram account which prior to Moon Lovers Scarlet Heart Ryeo ballooned from 500,000 followers [17]to 1.7 million during the course of the airing of Moon Lovers.[18] This reference has nothing to do with China as the equivalent in China for Instagram is Weibo where his following currently stands at 17 million. That brings up the final point. Although Awards ratings in South Korea are almost totally governed by TV ratings this actor continues to be personally recognized with awards. Not a small achievement given the overall low domestic ratings for his dramas since the military.In closing I must comment on the title reference to Resident Evil rather than the common term Hollywood debut. The title is certainly balanced although not usual or common language, it however, is not a major point of contention. Lastly, I believe the term cumulative views is wrong in the context of viewership being cited for Moon Lovers. Those numbers came from the data reflecting the simulcast in China and the viewership numbers during that simulcast (which is limited in time and scope and does not reflect continued viewing) The original 100k plus reflect the numbers being tracked and compared to the other simulcast dramas. [19] Again thanks to ALL.. Great Work. Maris Sefiro (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello editors. Unless objected to I will be making the following edits to the section headed 2014-Present. Specific edits are as follows:
Maris Sefiro (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lee signed with a new management agency, Namoo Actors.[20] He then starred in the period drama Gunman in Joseon (2014) and was named Outstanding Korean Drama Actor for a second time at the Seoul International Drama Awards despite the drama's lackluster dometic ratings. This was followed by the vampire romance Scholar Who Walks the Night in 2015. The drama averaged single-digit domestic ratings in its run but earned Lee a "Top Ten Stars" award at the MBC Drama Awards.[21][22] The same year, he was cast in his first Chinese movie, Never Said Goodbye.[23]
In January 2016, Lee was cast in the lead role of Wang So in Moon Lovers: Scarlet Heart Ryeo, a Korean remake of the Chinese television series, Scarlet Heart. The 20-episode drama, budgeted at US$13 million, premiered on August 29, 2016.[24] On November 1, Lee hosted a free fan meeting titled “My Love Lee Joon-gi” where fans were able to watch the final episode of Moon Lovers with him in attendance.[25] The production was not well received by critics and performed poorly in the domestic market, but averaged over 100 million viewers per episode during its simulcast through Youku China, which introduced the program to the Southeast Asian market. Its broader success earned the production the K-Culture Pride Award (a Korean Brand Award) and contributed to a high Consumer Power Index ranking for Lee.. [26][27][28][29][30][31]Cite error: A<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page).[32]
[33] Cite error: A<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page).[34]
[35]
On October 28, 2016, Lee has signed as a new model for Lotte Duty Free Shop. He also co-starred in a promotional web drama titled First Seven Kisses for the company.[36][37] Lee will be making his Hollywood debut with a cameo Appearance in the sixth and final installment of the Resident Evil series titled, Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, which is scheduled to be released worldwide on January 27, 2017.[38][39][40][41]
{{cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (help)
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (help)
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(help)
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (help)
{{cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (help)
{{cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (help)
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(help)
{{cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (help)
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (help)
The above "discussions", bizarely appear to be between members of two sock farms. What consensus there appears to be therefotre must be suspect.--KTo288 (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lee Joon-gi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lee Joon-gi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]