Talk:Awkwafina

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Awkwafina. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531124429/http://www.koreadaily.com/news/read.asp?page=1&branch=NEWS&source=&category=world&art_id=2552822 to http://www.koreadaily.com/news/read.asp?page=1&branch=NEWS&source=&category=world&art_id=2552822

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

date of birth
Am I missing something here?. The cited twitter post for June 2nd, was posted on June 1st. So why do we have June 2nd as date of birth?--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the origin of her stage name?
It would be nice to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.248.22 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Aguafina is a popular purified water brand of Pepsi that's been around a while

125.24.182.235 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No shit, but that doesn't explain the origin of her name. 67.241.240.42 (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Should the article refer to her by her stage name?
I noticed that this article references Awkwafina/Nora Lum by her given last name "Lum" throughout its text but other articles reference celebrities by their stage name (Madonna is referenced as Madonna, Lady Gaga is referenced as Gaga, etc). Is this an error on this page or the other pages or is there some difference between the way they've chosen their names which makes the different treatment appropriate? 216.93.198.9 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears that it should be her stage name as that is how she's known in film credits, referred to in magazine articles, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Subsequent_use 216.93.198.9 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've updated the Career section. I'm unsure whether the Early Life section should be updated as it starts before she took on her stage name and ends afterwards (but in a non-entertainment context). 216.93.198.9 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Cantonese
Currently the article has Mandarin Pinyin for her Chinese name but the article states her heritage is Cantonese, so can someone add a Cantonese romanization? And probably some variant of Wade-Giles, since she wasn't born in China, and WG was common outside of China at the time of her birth. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Another point. Although her heritage is said to be Cantonese, and her family name is given as Lum, which is the Cantonese pronunciation of the character, she is reported to have studied Mandarin in Beijing in order to communicate with her paternal grandmother.Bill (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

She shouldn't be classified as a rapper but rather "rapper comedian"
She fits in with Wierd AL Yankovick or Garfunkle and Oates who are considered musical comedians. 125.24.182.235 (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Abrothman (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

N-word?
The article contains this:

"...and potential repeated use of the n-word."

It's unclear what "potential...use" means. More importantly, there's nothing in the citations that mention the use of the word. This should be substantiated or removed. Abrothman (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

controversy
this is barely a controversy by any stretch of the imagination. until someone can show that she takes on a exaggerated voice of any sort on a regular basis, the fact is she talks like a new yorker, and that accent is not owned by any culture. rap is done with a certain style and cadence, that anyone may use. musically no one owns it, esp. if its close to what you learned as a child. for this to be a controversy, we would need reliable sources showing significant reaction, and this seems like a tempest in a teapot. its not a good idea to have such a significant section with so little references and so strongly POV. 50.193.19.66 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we should be using any of the references used. --Hipal (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSP:
 * Vice is questionable.
 * Vulture is better, but still questionable for contentious statements.
 * Medium shouldn't be used, so I've removed it outright.
 * I'm not finding any discussion about Femestella, and it's barely used within Wikipedia. Their description and prominent disclaimer make it questionable to use at all.
 * I'm not sure what to make of Revolt.tv. Seems quite a bit better than Femestella on all counts.
 * Papermag.com seems slightly worse than Revolt.tv, and similarly difficult to determine how to treat it. --Hipal (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It’s obvious the original editor was adding it because of their own vendetta. They were the one who added the unsubstantiated claim that she used the n word.--2601:18C:500:B0:3824:F431:DD78:3334 (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear if it should be removed entirely, but a rewrite from clearly BLP-quality references while avoiding OR and POV problems seems the bare minimum needed. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hipal. While some of the sources are questionable, not acknowledging the criticism entirely would be ignoring a very large part of her public perception, and would come off as biased in her favor. Ajack15 (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not as nearly as big an issue as people are trying to make it out to be given how almost no reputable sources (I.E. not gossip sites) have bothered to cover it. It certainly does not warrant an entire section given how brief the article is. --24.147.213.175 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For reference, I think this is the most recent version of the disputed 'Controversy' section. I agree that this much detail is undue based on the quality/quantity of the sourcing. I'd be in favor of including something in 'In the media' along the lines of "Commenters on Black Twitter and Lauren Michele Jackson, writing in Vulture, have criticized Awkwafina for her use of blaccent."[Vulture source][Revolt.tv source]. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If we’re going to cite the vulture piece then we should add that Jackson offered a number of rebuttals to the criticism in general and suggested that Awkwafina isn’t even emulating blacks people which is the whole point of the controversy in the first place.
 * “ On the other hand, Awkwafina’s antics don’t, to me, conjure blackness any more than Ed Sheeran’s bars. Is a “blaccent” an evocation of blackness, or of something else — power, imperialism, commerce, the digital age? Maybe blaccent shouldn’t function so metonymically, and maybe it shouldn’t imply blackness at all (blackness has enough to contend with), but that something else instead, indicting not an individual instance of theft but a global phenomenon that makes it impossible to know whether a nonblack millennial from Forest Hills studied black culture like a textbook or grew up with the same media as most of us, where blaccents in the mouths of white, snappy performers has been autonomous and apart from the actual speech patterns of black people since America had a theater tradition to call its own.” --2601:18C:500:B0:30ED:E99E:4CD0:C6E3 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think it would be difficult to capture the nuance of Jackson's view without undue attention to the controversy, but you're right that reducing it to just 'criticized' is too far. My bad! Jackson is also obliquely referring to criticism from others, but doesn't get specific enough for us to use her as a source on their views. If we don't use the Vulture source at all, do people feel we have enough for any content here? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn’t mean to come off as negative towards you, sorry if I did. In regards to the article, I don’t really know to be honest. I just don’t think people complaining on Twitter is that relevant. She hasn’t even been asked or addressed it unlike other cases of cultural appropriation. In comparison Miley Cyrus addressed it and that isn’t mentioned it all on her Wikipedia article. But if others think it should be included then maybe just add alleged in front.--2601:18C:500:B0:38DF:995A:2C85:BB49 (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't come off that way at all. I'd describe my position for now as open to a short sentence in 'In the media' as the maximum due by the sources but not pushing for anything at all. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Really, though—ending the page with a phone-screen-long except of the critical article in a large-font quote box? That hardly seems WP Objective; it's more like someone has an axe to grind. Wouldn't a couple of sentences in normal text express the viewpoint? – AndyFielding (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Controversy part 2
I am cautious about adding a controversy section without first asking the community as I do not want to post slander on anyone. I did write a section which I will post down below(with sources); ultimately she posted a statement a few days ago talking about her use of AAVE and in several interviews did somewhat comment on it. I think it's worth adding as this is an accusation that has followed her around for most of her career and is well documented by reliable news sources and it's something she has spoken about herself.

Throughout her career, Awkwafina has faced criticism for alleged cultural appropriation of AAVE and mannerisms characteristic of the African-American community. Awkwafina then commented "I welcome that conversation because as an Asian-American identity we’re still trying to figure out what that is, so I welcome the conversation."

On February 5, 2022, Awkwafina put out a statement on Twitter addressing allegations of cultural appropriation of AAVE, stating that as a "non-black POC, I stand by the fact that I will always listen and work tirelessly to understand the history and context of AAVE." Lum's response to the allegations received criticism for being several years in the making and for ultimately not being an apology. Jaguarnik (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - I do think it should at least get a mention. Though a whole section dedicated to it would seem excessive. Its not an isolated event, the accusations as you mentioned have followed her throughout her career and she has now even addressed it. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I could put a the section I wrote in the section on "Image" as it is part of her image. I agree that it's too short to merit a whole section but it is part of her image now. Jaguarnik (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just checked your edit on her page and I can agree with putting the controversy as a sub-section of her "Image and artistry". It does look like she wasn't exactly apologizing for the accusations, hence the criticism from people like Tiffany Cross as provided. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)