Talk:NewJeans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removing the third sentence of the lead[edit]

Was listening on Youtube Music on desktop, saw the bot scraped bio and found the "They are known for..." part excessively editorial. This line was first added on 31 May 2023‎ (attributed to a journalist) then fleshed out in 27 September 2023 by bringing wordings from the Artistry section. This ventures into music critic territory as artists nowadays rarely have a set look or sound. See the lead on bands such as Portishead (band), Coldplay, Le Sserafim, and fromis_9.

Unless there's any objections, I'll be removing this line per MOS:OP-ED later in the week. 2601:600:967F:88DC:C86D:F38D:33A9:7AC3 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object. The summary description is valid. The cited source says, "When it comes to aesthetic and musical appeal, NewJeans has been charting its own path with a girl-next-door-look and sweet pop tunes since debuting last July. Instead of high-octane makeup and outfits, the girls are styled as innocent and mostly natural." Don't remove it. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but that's an opinion reserved for the Artistry section. Declaring on the lead that this is what NewJeans are is subjective. This band has also only been active for over a year. Per MOS:RECENT: Terms likely to go out of date include best known for, holds the record for, etc. 2601:600:967F:88DC:C86D:F38D:33A9:7AC3 (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts." "-an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
MOS:OP-ED: "-make sure the expectation is verifiable and broadly shared rather than assumed."
MOS:RECENT: "Terms likely to go out of date include best known for, holds the record for, etc."
The sentence in question is a very liberal interpretation of Tiffany Ap's quote, along with not being properly attributed to her. It also says nothing about the band being "known for" for what she describes. (Same ipv6) Symphidius (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem. If a new musical group gets known for something, we can tell the reader no matter how long they have been active. There's nothing to fix. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get "When it comes to aesthetic and musical appeal, NewJeans has been charting its own path with a girl-next-door-look and sweet pop tunes since debuting last July. Instead of high-octane makeup and outfits, the girls are styled as innocent and mostly natural." to "They are known for their girl next door image and 1990s- and 2000s-indebted pop and R&B songs with influences of various dance and club styles." Maybe actually quote the author if you want this in so bad? Symphidius (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be a summary of article text. The reason I don't see a problem here is that the current wording of the lead section is indeed an accurate summary of the article. The sentence you want to remove is a summary of several different parts of the article body. The bit about 1990s style comes from Variety magazine which wrote, "throwback styling, plus nods to ’90s and early 2000s technology, are recurring themes across NewJeans albums". I would be fine with removing anything that does not accurately summarize the article body. Your target sentence is not a problem. Binksternet (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being known for something implies that there is a broad consensus to this description. "1990s- and 2000s-indebted pop and R&B songs with influences of various dance and club styles." is a far cry from "throwback styling, plus nods to ’90s and early 2000s technology, are recurring themes across NewJeans albums". This is not a summary, rather an entirely original description. Symphidius (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is an accurate summary since multiple sources talk about those aspects of NewJeans. See:
Poirot09 (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The girl-next-door thing, fine, but it the sentence needs to be worded as "their aesthetics have been described as" or "music critics have described their music as" accompanied by citations. As it stands, the current sentence assumes there is a broadly accepted descriptor despite just being a mishmash of snippets from different music reviews of different songs and EPs. Naturally, the statement would change every time NewJeans comes out with a new song or concept. Symphidius (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Variety said that they have a recurring theme of "throwback styling, plus nods to ’90s and early 2000s technology". That means they are known for this style. The pattern has been identified by WP:SECONDARY sources.
With Poirot09 voicing opposition and nobody else expressing agreement, you are not gaining consensus to remove any text. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it needs to be reworded and actually cited. Currently the entire sentence is unreferenced. Symphidius (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately you're defending a disputed unsourced statement. You can insist that "The pattern has been identified", but that's not for you to decide. Per WP:SECONDARY: "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source." Despite the sentence being wholly unsourced, I'm in the talk page seeking some sort of middle ground instead of outright removing it.
I'll take the initiative. @Poirot09 has produced a source that sounds eerily similar to the disputed statement. As I've mentioned previously, I would be fine with something like:
  • "They are described by L’Officiel Singapore as being "best known for their girl-next-door image and nostalgic hit tracks."
  • "According to L’Officiel Singapore, they are best known for their girl-next-door image and nostalgic hit tracks."
Symphidius (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is necessary. The sentence in question is supported by WP:LEAD. It doesn't need to be referenced because it is a summary of referenced facts found lower down in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. "They are known for" is a claim. It needs to be attributed. The disputed sentence sounds like a modified version of Danisha Liang's line with Joshua Minsoo Kim's remark inserted after, with the "influences of various dance and club styles" seemingly tacked on.
It is Liang that attempts to define NewJeans.
Kim is referring to their first EP which is sonically different than Get Up; it is not a meta commentary on the group itself.
Put together, it's passed off as singular cohesive thought. Symphidius (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. It's reasonable and logical to conclude that NewJeans is known for several things that are repeatedly mentioned in multiple sources. I am now signing off of this conversation as it is not going anywhere. But I will immediately restore the "known for" construction if you remove it without consensus. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to take this to dispute resolution or do you think we can reach a middle here? Symphidius (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked around for similar "known for" disputes and came upon editors referencing WP:CATDEF.
"A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to (in declarative statements, rather than table or list form)..."
While not a policy, reliable sources have consistently referred to the term "girl next door" regarding NewJeans. Reliable sources have also consistently referred to "90s", "nineties", and "1990s" when describing their music. I'll concede on removing the "known for" construction.
6 reliable sources describing NewJeans as "girl-next-door".
I've excluded sources from Hindustan Times, Popcrush, L’Officiel Singapore (I suspect circular reporting), Philipine Star (circular reporting), aggregate websites and sites listed as unreliable.
5 reliable sources mentioning variations of "1990s" in relation to their music.
Symphidius (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, @Symphidius:, I reverted your edit as no consensus is being made here, and your edits are a case of WP:POINT. Also, I removed your phrasing "contemporary takes" as none of the sources appear to support this claim (WP:OR). As there has been no consensus yet please respect the status quo. Ippantekina (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete anything. If anything I tried to work within the "known for" construction. You do realize that none of the sources specifically state that NewJeans is known for their 2000s music, right? There are only three sources cited in the article that mention the 2000s, and only two of them talks about their music. Source 1 does not refer to their music, rather their aesthetics:
In source 2 (a radio transcript), Sheldon Pearce erroneously calls it mid-2000 UK garage, a genre that originated and essentially peaked in the late nineties (Baltimore club is also from the 90s):
Source 3, mentions the 2000s along with the 1990s:
That's it. You can't conflate only those two things and then claim NewJeans is known for their 2000s music.
I'm with you that claims need to be sourced. Symphidius (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found additional sources that aren't even in the article:
With that, I have no problems with the current lead. Although inferring that I have some sort of ulterior motive is pretty hilarious. If everything was properly cited to begin with, I wouldn't be here trying to find corroborating sources. Symphidius (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NewJeans&oldid=1221711315"