Talk:Lee Joon-gi

Citing and article language
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,  on camera (t)  03:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I read citations and fixed a few things but they are named now. This article has enough references for it not to be tagged as such. If you want to add more references by all means go ahead. Look at how many refs are in this article in comparison to other articles and they do not have a citation tag at the top.
 * As for twitter. It says "normally" but I've seen a lot of Wiki articles with Cyworld links as well so should those not be added either. How do find out a twitter account is verified? And I know his Twitter account is verified because I am a mod to a fan club of his so I know this information. Proof: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Colleen16 (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The peacock thing, I did put links in the intro before but I removed them and placed them in the biography instead, because they were the same links as in the biography. I didn't want duplicate links in the intro. And like I said before those citation/reference tags should only be placed on article with less than 35 citations. This article doesn't qualify for such a tag. Colleen16 (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it needs more references! In the section "Dispute With Mentor Entertainment" every sentence should have a reference.  "Fan Meetings and Concerts" No references at all.  "Sawasdee Khrab Photobook" Only has one reference.  Etc, etc.  You need references for each statement.  Look at the length of this article; why doesn't it have more references?  See an article like TVXQ for further example.


 * As for peacock words, verify claims such as: "As of 2007, Lee is one of the top screen stars in South Korea. Lee also became quite popular for his noble role as Ryung in the 2008 action, romance drama Iljimae" in the opening. How do we know he's "quite popular" and is a "top star" in South Korea? Find different statements that aren't opinions or find a way to verify those claims.


 * 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.


 * Finally, I suggest rather than remove content you simply disagree with, you can work on improving the article. Check out WP:Ownership.


 *  on camera (t)  14:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Intersections
Colleen, why do you keep removing the Intersections link? It's a peer-reviewed journal article (a reliable source) about cute South Korean men which mentions Lee Jun Ki. --Malkinann (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I placed a link to that topic. It's in the Biography section, 2 paragraph, last few sentences the 8th link is the reference to it. I also didn't think it should be mentioned in the intro because it sounds so inappropriate. I'll put you link there, right next to the words 'pretty boy' is that alright? Colleen16 (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel it's inappropriate in the lead, the mention and the reference can be moved to a better point later in the article. --Malkinann (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that feels that way but the actor himself. He has mentioned in the news and articles that he's tired of hearing that name being said in his name so that's why. Don't ask how I know these things, I'm apart of one of his fan clubs so get info. Anyway's I moved it down to the section I mentioned. It's beside "pretty boy image". Colleen16 (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But the information the reference is beside doesn't actually appear in the Intersections article. :( --Malkinann (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to you know. The area that it is in is still similar to the content in your article isn't it? They both talk about his pretty boy image in the same movie. Colleen16 (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no - when inline citations are used, an inline citation absolutely does have to be next to the content from that source. WP:CITE can tell you more about why this is important. --Malkinann (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah...what section am I reading Malkinann? Colleen16 (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of WP:CITE? Citing_sources - "An inline citation should appear next to material that it supports".   Doing this also helps the verifiability of the article, by making it easy for people to check what information came from which source. --Malkinann (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro, sections, etc
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,  on camera (t)  16:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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.  on camera (t)  18:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Complete Redundant Change of the Article
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)
 * If they removed uncited information, then they were following policy. The editors listed their reasons above, and their reasons were not "redundant". They were following policy. No offense, but if you want to create your own article and not have to adhere to policy or others' opinions, then I would suggest creating a fansite. Also, their actions don't permanently remove anything. If you find proper references for the uncited information, then add it back. However, while I agree that some removed sections do qualify as Fancruft, I think the sections can be trimmed down a lot and integrated into other sections. Ω  pho  is  18:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ophois that's not the point I am making it is called "common courtesy". You don't edit a majority of what other people have edited especially since you aren't a major contributor to the article because there wasn't anything wrong with the original style of the article in the previous version. You can't edit whatever you want to because there are editors before you that have contributed a lot. That's what I am trying to explain to you. The article didn't entirely need to change. And I am a part of a fan site, his. Colleen16 (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ophois. The sections I removed were qualifying as fancruft.  I explained my actions before I made them in the sections above.  This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons guidelines.  If you don't like your edits being removed or edited, then don't edit Wikipedia.  All of us should understand that basic concept of this place; it says that directly underneath the "Save page" button when one is making edits: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.  Some "recent" editors working on this article have experience with writing a GA-class and we understand the policies; take a look at an Good Article like Brad Pitt if you need an example of what every article might be.  You should be glad that experienced editors are willing to help combine your work into a feasible manner that works with the policies.  Thank you for your efforts in adding pictures, but some failed because of copyright violations and Wikipedia will adhere to those policies.  Either way, I will find it unacceptable to revert this article back to the former version.  If there is information in that other section that isn't fancruft, source it using verifiable means and find a place for it in the other sections.    on  camera (t)  19:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You see you still aren't understanding me. I am not talking about policies I am talking about manners. Yes you must follow the rules but do the rules say that you should change an entire article to your liking. I can tell because not all articles on Wikipedia look the same. And OnCamera you did most of the changes. If you wanted to add references then add them don't take out important information because it isn't referenced. You completely changed the style of the article and nothing called for that. You are suppose to add and fix not remove. Colleen16 (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are suppose to add and fix not remove Where does it say my edits should be that way?  don't take out important information because it isn't referenced.  If there is information in that other section that isn't fancruft, source it using verifiable means and find a place for it in the other sections.  If it's important, it should be easy. Try to listen to what we're saying; we just keep repeating everything... guidelines and policies exist for a very good reason.  Also, why aren't you editing with your main account?   on  camera (t)  19:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some "recent" editors working on this article have experience with writing a GA-class and we understand the policies; take a look at an Good Article like Brad Pitt if you need an example of what every article might be. You should be glad that experienced editors are willing to help combine your work into a feasible manner that works with the policies. Not all articles have to have the exact same section titles hencean example of what every article might be. Example meaning not exactly the same. And I am glad that we have experienced editors but if you edit everything how am I suppose to learn. And I noticed you placed the words to help but you didn't help you took over. Thank you for your efforts in adding pictures, but some failed because of copyright violations and Wikipedia will adhere to those policies. What does this mean OnCamera? To me it seems like your patronizing me. There isn't anything wrong with the photos. I didn't upload them under my name. It's just that editors have something against me to what it is I don't know, "bad history" I guess. I am being nice and you are using a rude tone in which this discussion doesn't call for. Colleen16 (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation?
As an outsider to this dispute, I suggest that mediation might be useful here. Lady of Shalott 19:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a request for comment might be actually the better decision.  on  camera (t)  19:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * JKSarang spoke to an admin Phantomsteve and they said both versions were fine. But I think that what you did was ethically wrong. You aren't a major contributor to the article, OnCamera began editing October 2009, I began before that (check the history) and have kept up the article in good condition thus it should not have been changed to this extreme. You should have consulted one of the contributing editors of the article because they've worked hard on it. That's my point. It doesn't mean that you can't edit the article guys. In fact I would like help in learning the guidelines here. Colleen16 (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I edited this article for the first time at 12:09, February 7, 2007 per this edit. Talking to an admin who hasn't edited this article makes your argument invalid.  If you want to learn about the guidelines, then what about the links we have been posting over and over?  on  camera (t)  20:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah ha, since 2007, then once in 2008, still not much in contributions and you dropped it for a year and a half. The extremely long list of 99... IP's is me as well. ^^ At that time I wasn't thinking about joining Wiki. Even if the admin hasn't edited the article it doesn't matter they are still admin. As for the links I try to read through them but it's so hard to go through it. I'd rather be linked to the exact section/topic mentioned. Reading through these instructions make me dizzy, literally. I am trying though. Colleen16 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * JKSarang is blocked right now and cannot communicate with other users, and there is no admin by that name. Ω  pho  is  20:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Phantomsteve's page says he is a rollbacker, not that he's an admin. Anyway, why are people arguing in this section? It was intended to be a way to deescalate the tension here. BTW, I think a RfC is a reasonable suggestion, and probably a good step to take before going to what I suggested. Lady of Shalott 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can ask JK when they come on Ophois. Fine we can try the RFC LadyofShalott. Nice name by the way I like it. Steve is a rollbacker really? Interesting he is quite helpful though. Colleen16 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to quickly comment here: I have never claimed that I was an admin - in fact I think I made a point of saying something like "I am an ordinary editor like you" at some point. JKSarang was in discussion with me about the article (on IRC), and I looked at the older version and the current version and said that they were both valid. I also said that as this was the case, there was no reason to revert to the older version, as the current article was not factually incorrect. I also said this to Colleen16/InkHeart.
 * I am going to suggest that the parties here follow LadyofShalott's excellent advice, and as such I am not going to comment further here. Assuming that either mediation or a RFC are started, I am happy to take part as an outside party with knowledge of the issues, but no direct involvement - if someone would inform me. Otherwise, I do not feel that it is right to comment at this time. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see there is an RfC below --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 12:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright what did I miss. Oh Steve was here. So basically what Colleen16 said. Not much else for me to say I guess. <font color="FF4526" size="2pt" face="Arial bold ">JKSarang 01:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Current version or former version
Basically, there is disagreement among a few editors over the current version being more "suitable" than the former? () 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.  on camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  23:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mind you this isn't really about the amount of contributions given by each editor. It's mostly about an unnecessary change to the article that needn't such a huge change. As you can see in the comparisons above, the article's style was completely reverted back to it's old style and a lot of information was removed. Information that has influenced that individual's life.  Ink Heart ♥ 10:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am just concerned about the editors here right now they don't seem very co-operative at all. Colleen16 even asked to come up with some sort of an agreement and Oncamera just rejected it completely. honestly speaking it isn't fair to us who contributed quite a lot to this article. And yes they may have experience but we have the sources. I strongly think that the article should be returned back and then we can all go from there. <font color="FF4526" size="2pt" face="Arial bold ">JKSarang 01:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse my language but what the he**. This shouldn't be allowed what about those who gave a lot of work to the article. This bs. Who are these editors I have never even seen u before. And u just change the whole page. What's going on? Most of the previous edits here are deleted. I would suggest changing it back. It looks so messy now too.69dressings (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My edits
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.  on camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  02:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Darn right is. You seem to have come out of nowhere and revamped the whole page that is inconsiderate to other editors who 1 had no problem with first version and 2 others have contributed more than u so they should get more entitlement. Did u even ask them about changing the page? Cause I don't see that chat on the talk page. So editors have to ask u but they can't ask back. What kind of system is Wikipedia running here?69dressings (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No single editor or group of editors owns any WP article, 69. <font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="#ee3399">Lady <font color="#0095c6">of <font color="#442288">Shalott 03:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

An outside editor's view
As a relatively uninvolved editor, I thought I would bring my view.

I say "relatively uninvolved" - my involvement so far has been twofold:
 * I was in conversation with JKSarang and Colleen16/InkHeart in IRC on #wikipedia-en-help. During those conversations, I said that after a quick look at both versions, both were fine - but that as this was the case, and as the content was not inaccurate, there was no reason to revert to the old version
 * This morning, I reverted a change by 69dressings, and advised them to leave a message here, which I am pleased to see that they have - thank you, 69dressings.

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.

Lead section

 * Old version: 8 sentences
 * New version: 4 sentences
 * Lead section states The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. As a newcomer to the article, I find the old version a bit too long. For an introduction to the subject, do we really need to know about his education and the languages the he speaks? Neither of these are what Lee is known for.

Biographical sections

 * Old version: On my monitor, the "Biography" section covers 2-1/2 screens. The paragraphs are lengthy, and as a newcomer it looks intimidating. (The longest paragraph was 25 lines long, another 10 lines long)
 * New version: The biographical details are divided into logical sections ("Early Life" and "Career", with the latter divided into logical sub-sections - "Early years", "The King and Crown", "Overseas popularity", and "Return to Korea"). None of the sections are larger than a screenful. Most of the paragraphs were 4-6 lines long, with the longest being 7 lines long
 * The new layout looks more logical and organised. The fact that no section flows over a screenful (YMMV) and that none of the paragraphs are over-long makes it easier to read.
 * Content: I spent a while carefully looking at every sentence in each version.
 * I notice that while most references were kept, a couple were removed. However, when I looked up these references in IE, they caused my browser to crash three times! When I checked in Safari, I got a "Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page" saying that the sites were potentially dangerous.
 * The mentions of his education and languages spoken that were originally in the lead section are now in the "Early life" section, which is a more logical place to put them
 * Removal of text: A few phrases have been removed, but nothing that detracts from the meaning of the article - in fact what was removed did not particular add to the article (for example He would go on to appear in many more commercials and music videos. - which was unsourced - does not tell us anything which we cannot work out from the filmography, etc, further down the article).
 * Addition of text: The new version adds a couple of sourced bits of information (for example After the film, Lee became "an icon" of the South Korean "pretty boy" aesthetic.[9]); also in the "Overseas popularity" section, the criticism of My Girl and Fly, Daddy, Fly was added, and sourced - so in my eyes, this is perfectly correct. The article should mention criticisms such as this, as it is not text on a fan site, but information on an encyclopedia
 * Re-wording of text: The new version has very few bits re-written. The bit about how Lee "tried to diminish the pretty boy image" is one of those, but to my eyes, the new version reads as more encyclopedic. Also, the quotations are directly referenced by the sources. Other minor re-writes "tighten up" the text, while keeping all the information

Dispute With Mentor Entertainment
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
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'
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
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
I think the old version had too many pictures in the Gallery. Image_use_policy 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.

Summary
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.

Recommendations
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, --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Analysis Response
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.

Lead section
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
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
Fine

Ambassador
Fine

'Fan Meetings and Concerts' and 'Sawasdee Khrab Photobook'
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
I think you mean Filmography. But it's fine.

Gallery
This is fine as well. There was non-free images used in it which goes against Wiki rules.

Verifiability
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 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)
 * Our fansite has English translations to some/most of the references given to this article, but a fansite isn't a reliable source. So Korean news reference is our best bet. And also I was quite surprised at you, Malinann, for going along with Oncamrea's changes. You should have known better than to change the entirety of the article without discussing it first. "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." Well the article was only missing sources and before the article was changed I was searching for more references. I still have references to add to this article but I won't until it is changed back and discussed properly.  Ink Heart ♥ 11:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was very surprised that Colleen (you?) did not seem to recognise the importance of having the inline citations next to the material that comes from those citations (verifiability). I realise that the Korean sources used are news websites, but because of the uncertainty that Colleen, a prolific contributor to this article, exhibited, I'm no longer certain that any of the material in the article is adequately verifiable. I believe that "poorly sourced information" which BLP says should be removed immediately includes uncertainty about whether the information presented in the article comes from the source it appears to have come from. As the verifiability is compromised, the shorter version of the article meets BLP better than the longer version.  That was why I did not revert the cuts to the article.  --Malkinann (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Further Outside Views
Doing this to separate out the continuing commentary from involved users, and to get some kind of readable RfC process going.
 * Support the new version. As a completely uninvolved user...the lead seems clearer and more relevant, more information is included and it is better written and organised. Can't see any case for reverting to the old version. Phil153 (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust that my placing my analysis etc and Inkheart's analysis into collapsed section helps with the readability --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 15:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the new version. User:Phantomsteve has done an admirable job and sums it up nicely - thanks for devoting the time and effort to do that. One supporting comment of my own - the whole article is a biography, so having a "biography" section is just illogical. Such sections should be broken down into shorter sections as has been done in the new version. In fact I spend a lot of time doing that in other bio articles. – ukexpat (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support new version, as per the above comments. As it is a BLP, refs are required, and the newer version is more encyclopedic and therefore preferable.  (There are still a number of problems with the article (some wording, such as Lee being a "fairly normal" teenager, plus the trivia) but I realise that we're only dealing with the two compared versions here.) SKS (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed those, but as they were in both versions, I didn't comment. Obviously, tidying up still needs to be done - there's no such thing as a normal teenager, let alone a fairly normal one - although from personal experience, I think the nearest to normal teengaer would be Kevin the Teenager! --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 19:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think the newer version has improved the article, and I commend PhantomSteve's analysis above. <font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="#ee3399">Lady <font color="#0095c6">of <font color="#442288">Shalott 19:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:InkHeart, alias User:Colleen16, alias User:Belov, alias User:DelaClaire, alias User:JezzyBear, alias User:JKSarang blocked as per and . Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Article move
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?  on camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  05:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support your suggestion, although it would be more appropriate to have a disambiguation link on the actor's page since there is only one other article. Ω  pho  is  05:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My move was based on my patrolling of the recently created article of Lee Jun-gi (now a redirect page) with almost bit-by-bit copy-and-paste contents. Since the title was another Romanzation of the actor's name, I tried to create more redirect pages, and found out the article of the football player. Given articles of Korean sport players tend to be in very poor status regardless of their notability, so I assumed the article status is not a factor for gauging which one is a primary topic to take Lee Jun Ki. Besides, it is no point to create a disambiguation since only two entries are here with the name. However, if the consensus does not agree with me, feel free to revert my edit.--Caspian blue 05:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, but I agree with User:Ophois' modification; something similar to For the football player, see Lee Jun-Ki (football player). at the top of the Lee Jun Ki actor's article would solve this, no? And that whole mirror-copies of this article mess has to do with sock-puppetry/WP:OWN...  Can you move the article back and add that at the top?  I'm not sure how to move an article after it's been moved already without make double-redirects or whatever.   on  camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  05:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ (after requesting for deletion with Db-g6)--Caspian blue 07:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Commercials
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)
 * InkHeart, I really don't understand why you even bother wasting your time at this. Oh well, another proxy will soon be blocked, so thanks for helping with that. Ω  pho  is  04:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Lee Jun Ki → Lee Jun-ki – This is the given name in a Korean name and Naming conventions (Korean) 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)


 * Support: per citation above. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Chosun Ilbo and Korea JoongAng Daily both use the proposed form. Kauffner (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose He actually romanizes his name Lee Joon Gi per his official site. http://www.leejoongi.co.kr/ Perhaps move it to that instead.  on  camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  17:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, I researched this and on his facebook page, he requests to be called Lee Joon Gi instead of LJK from now and posted an image of his new passport which shows the correct spelling.  on camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  18:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * His passport shows his name as "Joongi" not "Joon Gi". And anyway, the subject's personal preference does not override other editorial considerations: if is contrary to usage in reliable sources and generates unnecessary confusion among non-specialist readers, it's certainly reasonable to ignore it. 61.18.170.244 (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it say newspaper references should outweigh personal preference? First thing written in WP:NC-KO is Personal, organization, and company names should generally be romanized according to the nameholder's preference and either way Joon Gi is the preferred spelling of his name, his official website is even leejoongi.co.kr. And he is referenced by this spelling in news articles: 2012 ref 2006 ref.  on  camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  00:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, WP:COMMONNAME, which has far more consensus than any narrow topic-area specific style guidelines, says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Second, the Yonhap and Chosun Ilbo sources you cite do NOT put the useless and confusing space between the two syllables of his given name: they write "Lee Joon-gi", not "Lee Joon Gi". 61.18.170.34 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support We should use the style of hyphenation and spelling adopted by WP:RS such as professionally-edited South Korean newspapers which are expected to be the most knowledgeable about the subject, per WP:COMMONNAME. There is one English website in Google News which repeatedly uses use "Lee Jun Ki" but that appears to be a blog and not an actual newspaper. 61.18.170.244 (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Expanding my point: we can quibble about the spelling "Jun-ki" or "Joon-gi" (incidentally, neither one follows any systemic romanisation system), but the first order of business it to hyphenate the given name. We should not be writing Korean names in the unnecessarily confusing style with spaces between the syllables of the given name unless that is the overwhelming consensus of high-quality sources, which in this case it clearly is not. Print media in South Korea use hyphenation in almost all cases --- because otherwise there are some names even native Koreans cannot figure out if you're writing it with individual name first or family name first. For example, "Han Il Jeong" (한일정/정한일): "Han" and "Jeong" are common family names, and "Il-jeong" and "Han-il" are both valid men's individual names . 61.18.170.34 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

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)

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)
 * Support per nom. (and what an extremely well presented RM proposal!) In ictu oculi (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you--Michaela den (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not really on board with the idea of transliterating according to personal preference. In this case, the subject had one vanity transliteration at the time his best known work was released, and he has now shifted to another. His market is not English speaking, so the transliterated form means little or nothing to him or his fans. He is free to flip it around whimsically. What about Lee Jun-gi? This is the standard transliteration. I am not only one who thinks this way either. See Chosun, Dong-A, Variety, and AP. Kauffner (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not so much as a whimsical vanity name change because there had not been any reliable sources that categorically states what his preferred romanized name is prior to the establishment of his website in 2012. He had been credited as 'Lee Jun-ki' and 'Lee Jun-gi' as you have pointed out; as well as 'Lee Joon-gi' as early as 2007 by Yonhap News, Korea Times in 2009 and Korea Tourism Organization in 2009. Even if it was an official name change, the WP:TITLE policy does not forbid its usage, as long as it also the common name. The sources you referred to are all from 2006 hence does not hold as much weight as those published in 2012. The point is that 'Lee Joon-gi' is now his preferred name per WP:NC-KO and the common name in use in reliable English-language sources per WP:COMMONNAME.--Michaela den (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * MOS:FOREIGN says, "Use a systematically transliterated or otherwise romanized name (Aleksandr Tymoczko, Wang Yanhong); but if there is a common English form of the name (Tchaikovsky, Chiang Kai-shek), use that form instead." The only context in which this subject has received international press coverage is the reviews and publicity for the movie that was released in 2006. As this coverage does not use the proposed form, I don't think this form can be considered his common name. Kauffner (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME states "to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". There is no policy that states that international sources are preferred over any other sources, however it does state that "more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". That's why I said that the 2006 sources do not hold as much weight compare to those in 2012. Together with more sources using the propose form, therefore it is the common name to use as the article title.--Michaela den (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lee Joon-gi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071029214939/http://english.yna.co.kr:80/Engnews/20060919/670000000020060919103228E4.html to http://english.yna.co.kr/Engnews/20060919/670000000020060919103228E4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 13:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Editing needed for 2014-Present: Domestic Flops and North American Debut?
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? 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? 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. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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)


 * THOUGHTS: No Change Needed I know it must be saddening for fans, especially those who only edits the Lee Joon Gi page, to see that their idols have flop projects but "flop" and "failure" do not violate any Wikipedia guidelines especially since an article cited in the section itself has declared his recent projects flops. It's not unsubstantiated at all. And I wouldn't call a glorified cameo a Hollywood debut either (Lee himself said it was just a guest role anyway). I would even say calling that a Hollywood debut is peacock and fluff. Besides, the film is produced by international firms, not just by a US-based company. North American debut is more appropriate.AkoAyMayLobo (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree: I don't know why this is an issue. This isn't a fan page where you can shower your idol with praises. Films with low box office are directly called box office flops in their respective pages too. More famous actors have sections titled "Career Decline" and so on. Let's be real, Lee's projects have been considered failures in that span of years so the section title is appropriate. It's not as if this was an opinion by the editor/s alone. The media is writing about it like the one cited in the section body itself (more here:http://m.entertain.naver.com/read?oid=112&aid=0002873726 http://m.news.naver.com/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=106&oid=001&aid=0008881219). This isn't libelous. This is based on facts. Who is Lee to be cushioned like this when his projects are indeed flops and the several media sources are writing about it? Even his 2015 Chinese film didn't have any impact. My suggestion would be calling the section under review "Lowly-rated dramas and North American debut". Or just split the sections. Merge the Comeback sections with his flop dramas and call it "Comeback and lowly-rated dramas". And make his North American debut a separate section. Kalumpit (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * AGREE: Lowly-rated dramas and North American debut/international debut should be the name of the section. It's evident that his dramas didn't do well, that's the most glaring part of the prose. It was what happened, the summary so that should be the section name. Nobody is saying Lee is a failure but you can't deny that his dramas did poorly domestically, and that's what the section title will reflect. It's that simple, no need to make it complicated just because his fans are upset about it or what not. KyloRenSW (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment the above three users are socks, see Sockpuppet investigations/AkoAyMayLobo.--KTo288 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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 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 to Note: Thank you so much for adding to the discussion. I hear what you are saying yet no one has contradicted the citations supporting the revision or proven it to be fluff or peacock. My intent is simply to add balance. Such balance is missing because the article is about the actor yet the focus is on the drama which is already covered in an existing article.   Maris Sefiro (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Final Thoughts:

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. 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.” 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)


 * Edited Again without Consensus:

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)


 * Continued Comment:

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)


 *  Consensus Reached? :

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, “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 to 1.7 million during the course of the airing of Moon Lovers. 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. Again thanks to ALL.. Great Work. Maris Sefiro (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Section Edit for 2014-Present
Hello editors. Unless objected to I will be making the following edits to the section headed 2014-Present. Specific edits are as follows:
 * Added the definite article “the” before “period drama” and “Seoul International Drama Awards” in sentence 2.
 * Added adjectives “domestic” ratings for clarification.
 * Edited the term North American debut to common language of Hollywood debut (supported by citation)
 * Edited the term “guest role” to “cameo appearance”
 * Altered the sentence “The drama is a critical and financial failure but it drew a more favorable response in other parts of Asia” to: “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”
 * Added adjective “worldwide” as premier has already occurred December 13th in Japan.
 * Corrected translation of citation 49 to “After Moon Lovers' flopped against the popularity of historical dramas....What's the next move of Lee Joon Gi, 'the ruler of historical dramas'?
 * Added citations.

Maris Sefiro (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * NOTE: “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”
 * Parts italicized are full of fluff and peacock which is not only misleading but patronizing. First, it was not 100 million viewers but 100 million cumulative views. Big difference. And no, its broadcast in China didn't pave way to its SEA market? What?! They're not connected at all since SEA have independent broadcasts. And the K-Culture Award shouldn't be mentioned to Lee's page as it's insignificant to him. It's already mentioned in the production's page, no need to mention it here as it just makes everything contrived. And the connection to Lee's Consumer Power Index to that award is reaching it. That's a violation of original research guideline of Wiki. Just because it was written by a so-called journalist doesn't mean it will automatically be accepted in Wiki. Wiki is fact-based and do not entertain, pardon the language, ass-licking. This is a better, more concise version: "The production was not well received by critics and performed poorly in the domestic market, but averaged 100 million cumulative views per episode during its simulcast in China's Youku." Umetarou (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

2014–present
Lee signed with a new management agency, Namoo Actors. 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. The same year, he was cast in his first Chinese movie, Never Said Goodbye.

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. 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. 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..

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. 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.

Warning:Readers beware
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)


 * Noted the above. Please note I have made an edit to remove disputed parts of section headers and kept only the years for the most part. Would suggest we discuss if any feel that further edits to the headers are required - I think using just the years to divide the information is enough, particularly since the article is not that long. Jkr2010 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091220001228/http://www.koreasociety.org/film_blog/news/the_27th_blue_dragon_awards.html to http://www.koreasociety.org/film_blog/news/the_27th_blue_dragon_awards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127113252/http://mama.interest.me/history?type=winner&year=2006 to http://mama.interest.me/history?type=winner&year=2006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304064028/http://twitchfilm.com/2006/09/king-and-the-clown-special-3-the-king-and-the-clown-part-1-of-3.html to http://twitchfilm.com/2006/09/king-and-the-clown-special-3-the-king-and-the-clown-part-1-of-3.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130127125420/http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/html/589/2948589.html to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/html/589/2948589.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029193847/http://star.mt.co.kr/stviewEng.php?type=3&no=2012092913490259924 to http://star.mt.co.kr/stviewEng.php?type=3&no=2012092913490259924

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
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)
 * Actorjg04.jpg