Talk:Mamamoo

Removed some awards
Per previous consensus, I have removed fan-run awards. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Information about recent quality assessment
I have removed the request from the appropriate page since it has been completed, so here is an explanation of the result:


 * Agreed, I think it's C (not quite B for failing B2: the sections are rather short and some aspects one would expect to find about a band are not covered). Reassessed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Gottagotospace (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Mamamoo went to so many variety shows why removed others and left only showtime?
apparently from what i saw last time, it has a list of variety shows mamamoo appeared in. But the latest edit only have mamamoo X gfriend showtime. Isnt it better to list out all the variety show. it will be easier for those new fans get to know mamamoo better through the shows. It is removed by someone, can anyone try to edit it and put in as much variety show that you remember to improve the page. Its better too Username1352 (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is an encylopedia and not a fansite to help fans find a list of a variety shows, it was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture with a clear conclusion of over 12+ supports that guesting on variety shows needs to be removed. Snowflake91  (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I see but shouldnt it at least included mamamoo own variety show like mamamoo tv. But still i find it ridiculous to remove the variety show list, its also counted as information for the people who wanted to know more about mamamoo by looking for variety shows after reading those history of theirs am i wrong? but since its already decided i couldnt do anything about it but just felt dissapointed about it. Username1352 (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mamamoo. 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 tag to http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/index.phpnationGbn%3DT%26current_week%3D9%26current_year%3D2014%26chart_Time%3Dweek
 * Added tag to http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&current_week=9&current_year=2014&chart_Time=week
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140623175424/http://blog.koreaboo.com/post/87276464973/mamamoo-and-geeks-release-new-track-hehehahaeho to http://blog.koreaboo.com/post/87276464973/mamamoo-and-geeks-release-new-track-hehehahaeho
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714212123/http://blog.koreaboo.com/post/89120154158/mamamoo-releases-their-mini-album-hello-mv-for-mr to http://blog.koreaboo.com/post/89120154158/mamamoo-releases-their-mini-album-hello-mv-for-mr

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) 15:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy/celebrity scandal in the career section
Pertaining to this recently added snippet to the career section:

In the same month, the group received criticisms for blackface when a performance revealed the members wearing considerably darker facial makeup for a cover of Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars' "Uptown Funk". An apology was later issued through their Facebook, stating that they were "extremely ignorant of blackface and did not understand the implications of our actions. We will be taking time to understand more about our international fans to ensure this never happens again."

There're multiple problems with this snippet, which is why it has been subject to removal by many users:
 * 1) The referenced article is wrongly interpreted by the editor. Just by reading the referenced article it's obvious that: it's placed wrongly in the timeline by a whole year, it does not meet the dictionary definition of blackface (that's why the referenced article uses the careful wording 'what many interpreted to be'), the incident was not during a performace and it was not a cover. This means that while the snippet itself has a reference to a reliable published source included, the content of the snippet does not match what is presented in the source material. This means that the above mentioned details were added by the editor themselves and are thus unsourced (and also incorrect).
 * 2) As a celebrity scandal that sprung a handful of articles in the English speaking k-pop sphere and went almost completely ignored in the korean sphere and media, I don't see how this is relevant enough to their career to be included alongside major milestones, achievements and album releases otherwise included in the career section.
 * 3) Why the snippet has been restored by multiple users despite the blatantly false information is not obvious to me. But according to my experience with this issue, it could be explained by a coordinated troll effort.

/ I am going to try and respond to your concerns about this article, I am going to disregard the third point as it is based on your interpretation of the information as being "blatantly false" and a possible "coordinated troll effort".

Some issues you have raised are that it's placed wrongly in the timeline (easy enough to move without having to delete), the incident was not during a performance (the music video is itself a performance, and according the provided sources was released as part of their concert).

You express concern that "it does not meet the dictionary definition of blackface" and that "the referenced article uses the careful wording 'what many interpreted to be'". You can see that the other two referenced articles (Billboard & Korea Herald) both refer to it as blackface without any such careful wording. So if part of your issue is the "what many interpreted to be" it is easy enough to replace that reference with a clearer one.

Hope this has helped at least partially, I am very tired and doing the best I can to respond in detail.  Grey joy talk 11:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It was also not a cover, it was a few seconds long snippet in a series of short impersonation skits, with Uptown Funk playing as BGM. This piece of information was incorrectly added by the editor and is thus unsourced, alongside the other incorrect information. I don't see why it is my duty to correct this information, and if I don't, have the incorrect and potentially libelious information without a valid source stay included indefinitely. This should be a burden of the person who originally added this information. I've mentioned this in your talk page, but to also include it in this discussion, according to Biographies_of_living_persons, "All quotations and any material must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be ." The snippet in its current form is not properly supported by a reliable source.

There is also the second concern I've expressed, about why this incident is relevant enough to be included in the career section. Thank you for the quick responses. Mast321r (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It is easy enough to change "cover" to "parody" to match the provided references, I am happy enough to do that if you feel that it isn't your duty. The references provided are reliable published sources. If your issue is with the wording that is something that we can correct, deleting the chunk of references information is not the way to address it. Your concern on if the event is notable enough to be included is certainly something to be discussed. An editor was bold and removed it, this removal was then challenged by another editor who reverted it. At this point the correct approach is discussion here on the talk page, not removal of the information. From what I can see this was an event which received enough coverage and backlash to be mentioned in the article, others may disagree, which is why it is important for there to be time for this to be discussed.  Grey joy talk 11:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is not overly difficult to correct and properly source. I am just confused as to why the correct course of action is to leave the incorrect information up and then discuss. It's not just wording, the snippet implies they performed an 'Uptown Funk' cover in blackface, which is worsening the incident tenfold and thus could be considered defamatory. It seems to go against Wikipedia guidelines. But I suppose I'm just arguing a principle now.

As to if this notable enough to be included in the career section. I don't think an incident that spawned a handful of English articles, with almost no footprint in Korea is relevant enough to the career of an Korean artist to be included in this section. Cultural mishaps like these happen very often in k-pop and are not commonplace to be included on Wikipedia pages as a major piece of information. The other content in that section is discussing major milestones and album releases, and then there is a tabloid-like mention of a celebrity scandal that had no measurable effect on their success or overall career. Mast321r (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If the snippet is implying that they performed a cover then the issue is wording, as it could be reworded to more accurately explain that it was a parody as part of a series of skits (as I have just done). The reason that I advised leaving it up to discuss is because it is properly referenced and the primary issues seems to be notability/how it is written. This is not cause for deleting the section. This is cause to either correctly word it or, if that is not something you wish to do, ask that someone else do.  Grey joy talk 12:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I apologise for bothering you but would you like to give a comment on this? Thanks, Heolkpop (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have corrected the information and provided more accurate sources. Now I would like to continue with the discussion on notability. Mast321r (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with GreyJoy. It seems the main issue was just the timing of the event and its wording, both which have been addressed.  Criticisms and controversies are often included within celebrities' pages.  Big Bang's page discusses cultural appropriation, Beyonce's also talks about blackface, while BTS focuses on sexism in their lyrics, etc. The two former articles are also GA. The reason why this did not receive coverage in their native language is perhaps because blackface is a topic that reporters in the United States cover more due to its history with slavery and colonialism, which is why K-pop and its appropriation of hip hop culture is often a topic of critique in the United States and Mamamoo's performance is included within these critiques as examples.  Mamamoo themselves addressed the topic, similar to all the other artists addressing their criticisms.  They acknowledged it, released an apology statement, and moved on with their career. I'm confused as to why folks see the topic as irrelevant when it gained enough criticisms for the group to release an official statement. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Personal opinion: I also wanted to address the point of multiple users deleting the information: most of them are not registered users, and the two who are registered are fairly new/Mamamoo's war edit have been their only contributions. Meanwhile, editors who reverted the deleted materials are the ones who have been editing for a while, so I would trust their judgement better than the ones who keep reverting it anonymously or are just starting out. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

All your examples are short comments in appropriate contexts: mention of criticisms of BTS' misogynistic lyrics is a short remark in their Artistry section in a paragraph discussing lyrics. Big Bang's cultural appropriation issue is a short comment in a section discussing their fashion. Mentioning a celebrity scandal that barely even registered in the Korean media sphere and thus had no measurable impact on their success or career seems irrelevant in the career section, which is usually dedicated to major events, milestones and achievements. As for "releasing an official statement" being the litmus test for notability, they also released an official statement/apology when one of the members forgot to label her VLive broadcast as containing drinking and that got picked up by tabloids − should that also be included as a notable point in their career? I don't think that's a relevant argument. If Wikipedia is supposed to be written from an American POV, then this could possibly be considered notable. From a global and Korean POV, this is hardly notable. I hope you see my point.


 * As for the users removing the snippet, it was probably fans who knew that the information was incorrect and hence felt compelled to remove it. Editors obviously couldn't know that without deeper investigation and so this back and forth situation resulted. But it seems that we've resolved that now with my edit. Mast321r (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * But this criticism is also a short comment. It's not its own section. Sometimes you just need to add more context and the others did not require as much. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You didn't address my point. It's not about the length, it's about relevancy in given context. Discussing an issue with lyrics in an Artistry section in a paragraph already discussing lyrics makes sense. Discussing cultural appropriation of a fashion style in a section already discussing their fashion makes sense. Picking and including one scandal which happened in the American fringe of the k-pop fandom that had no measurable impact on their overall success or career does not make much sense in the career section, but I've already explained that point. Mast321r (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You are going in circle; your points have already been addressed by GreyJoy yet you refuse to listen. To address your points: 1) it is relevant to their CAREER, which is why it was included in the CAREER section & also why other competent editors felt the need to keep it despite removals from random IP addresses or editors who have no experience editing, 2) plenty of other Wikipedia articles have included controversies that have no measurable impact on their overall success or career, including articles from American sources. All three articles I used as examples can speak for that.  With that being said, I refuse to go into further debate with you since the consensus is to keep it. Since you are a new editor, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia. This thread is closed. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I was just restating my point because you were ignoring it. Thank you for addressing it now. I explained why your examples are not comparable. As for the ad hominem, I know Wikipedia very well, thank you. Not being active on this account does not make my points invalid. I don't know what gives you the authority to "close this thread" and announce consensus in your favor. But if the consensus is that the Wikipedia policy is to allow flooding with inconsquential tabloid information, then so be it.

Maybe someone more senior can chip in and put this discussion to rest? Thank you. Mast321r (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

On a second thought, while I still think the incident is not notable with regards to their career, after seeing all the misinformation in many of the supposedly reputable sources, maybe keeping the corrected version in will at least bring some truth to the world. I'm also tired, so I'm pulling my horse from the race. As long as this doesn't open the flood gates to spam the article with every celebrity "scandal" that has spawned a few tabloid articles. Mast321r (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am new here but I was hoping to give my two cents on this issue. The mass deletes of the bit in question are most likely from fans who felt that the controversy should not be included in Mamamoo's career page. Whilst it was part of their career, and they have acknowldged and apologized multiple times for their mistake, many may have felt that the wording was misleading initially. Further, there is an issue of whether other artist's problematic pasts were tackled on their respective wikipedia pages. If we were to keep the page as is, it sets a precedent for us to follow and thus, we should update other idols' pages as well.

From your previous examples, GD and BTS was noted. However, their past actions were not as highlighted as compared to Mamamoo's. GD has done multiple instances of Blackface and other cultural appropiration, with no apology whatsoever to the public. Apink Bomi did that as well, but that was not included in their pages. Moreover, many kpop groups have appropriated other cultures. For example, Black Pink's Jennie used a Bindhi for their recent concept photo.

Kpop fandoms are very passionate about their idols, it is highly likely that keeping this bit in the Mamamoo page will trigger the fans to mass complain and/or email to Wikipedia. If we were to follow through with the set precedent and update for all kpop groups, their fans will most likely do the same. This will open the floodgates for a whole mess, I feel.

If that is the case, would it not be better to simply remove this portion? Jenmoo (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

So if this is important info all kpop acts should have an update on pages whoever did this one better make it work I expect the past to be brought to the light thank you Bovie94 (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there everybody. Regarding the whole of this conversation, I think the worry expressed by Mamamoo fans is not particularly that such info would ruin their idols' career. Anyone who digs a bit would find out about the issue eventually, and the apologies that have been made. I think what they fear is just that this would prevent potential listeners to actually just give the group a try, and/or join the fandom, and thus, the group to expand, outside of South Korea or East Asia. As I understand, the fandom has recently managed to bring a more global attention to this particular group, whose career has indeed been affected by the issue (regarding international fans). Wikipedia is most likely to be the first thing people who want to know about something they have just discovered will look at. Usually, most fans learn about their idols' controversies directly from the fandom, and do their own research to decide if yes or no they can still show support to a group who, sorry for my language, but I cannot think of anything else, "messed up". This kind of controversy is frequent in K-pop, and needs to be underlined. Therefore, if we do it for one group, we need to do it for all, even if it has not affected their career in a similar way. There is enough reliable material online to do it. Or else, we do not do it at all. Sure, Mamamoo is probably the only group for whom such controversy has had such an impact on their career, for the random reason that they did not have as many supporters as the others and that it blew up on social media (when most groups usually get away without trouble and without apologies, relying on their reputation), but if the goal is to provide educative information (which I think is also a purpose Wikipedia could have), notably on K-pop, other groups should be commented upon. Or maybe Wikipedia could have a page dedicated to the topic actually, I think this would be a useful piece of information.

I don't know. OddlyMaskedBoo (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Whether the information is negative or detracts listeners is not of particular interest to Wikipedia, so that argument won't likely fly. I suggest you read the WikiProject_Biography policy and WP:COI. I don't know where you got the impression that this scandal affected their career considerably. I know this is English wikipedia and Americans like to feel in the center of things, but we're writing about a Korean group and from a global point of view the scandal wasn't very relevant. There have been many scandals in k-pop that actually affected careers considerably and those almost always came from domestic impact. But we already had a "discussion" on notability (which got shut down by the person who added it in the first place on the basis of seniority and weak arguments).

This is likely here to stay. It is silly and not common in other groups' articles (the examples given before are not comparable – and one actually got edited out recently), but it's hard to get an actual discussion going here. And all the fans coming here with no Wikipedia experience and irrelevant arguments definitely don't help. Mast321r (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to talk about source which was used on Mamamoo's scandal. I don't think Koreaboo is the credible one. Koreaboo shares possible dating scandals, rumors and other misinformations as the facts. They write articles how someone was spotted somewhere etc. They are not newsletter website. After explanation they will not remove these articles or apologise for misinformations. They translate korean articles from korean websites which aren't newsletters for example Nate and these websites aren't trustful. How can be source credible when it shares gossips and use it as clickbaits? On the same princip work Soompi and Allkpop. Also, why isn't here full apology? Billboard shared full apology but on Mamamoo's wikipedia page is just a little part and out of the context. For such a sensitive topic would be better full explenation and apology from Mamamoo. Teerkaa (talk) 8:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It already takes up a lot of space. The article has to be balanced. The full apology is referenced right next to it if anyone is curious. For your first point, the low quality of English k-pop sources is sadly almost universal. Mast3r (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed Koreaboo reference. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 09:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, to anyone feeling the article is imbalanced because the incident wasn't very notable from a global perspective – compared to rest of the content in the career section – a way to help it is to expand the section to include more information other than just a listing of major milestones. Mast3r (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you need to distinguish between notability and verifiability. "Notability" only applies to the subject of the article, which is Mamamoo. "Verifiability" applies to the content. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 09:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm aware of that. I meant notable more as in "worthy of attention or notice; remarkable", as it was previously being used in the discussion I'm addressing, not the Wikipedia usage of the word. Mast3r (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Now what about source The Korea Herald? They are newsletter but it is only korean newsletter which informed about this issue in english. Their article is weirdly written(?). The point is: in their article they wrote "blackface" in quotation marks which is can be expressed as an irony and blackface is really sensitive topic for being disparage like this. Here on wikipedia you don't have it in quotation marks not even once. They didn't put quotation marks to Mamamoo's apology where they talk about blackface (well, it's their citation). Someone who put "blackface" to their written article is questionable. It's the same as if someone would wrote: The man "killed" woman or oh, you are really tooooo "funny". They seem to be questioning word blackface and its value. The bad wording can change meaning of the word. So, is The Korea Herald good source to be used? Teerkaa (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for my english. I see, you don't understand me. Mamamoo's wikipedia page is well written. Wording is ok. My point was: I doubt The Korea Herald's article because they used blackface in quotation marks in the title of their article and I want delete them as one of the sources. The use of the quotation marks doubts their meaning of the value of the word. As I said it could sounds for someone they don't take it seriously because quotation marks can be used as an irony. So it looks they make fun of the word. Quotation marks can be used for many reasons and irony is one of the options. Teerkaa (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * When you cite a source, you do not cite it based on the title alone, which in this case you seems to be doing so. You cite by looking and reading through the content of the source. If you read up The Korea Herald's article, nowhere does it wrote blackface in quotation marks. The blackface at the last paragraph is used as an emphasis, rather than to express it as an irony. Your analogy is flawed and nowhere the same. Furthermore, The Korea Herald is one of the reliable sources as per WP:KO/RS. Heolkpop (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean their second use of word blackface in last paraghraph, It's obviously used as emphasis and not in ironic meaning. I meant in their title of the whole article where is written: Mamamoo apologizes for ‘blackface’ controversy - are USED QUOTATION MARKS. Someone could likened it to the similar meaning of the phrase like: Yeah, you are 'funny' (where is obviously an irony). One of their latest articles is also titled : HyunA opts for ‘honest’ route, confirming relationship with E’Dawn and it sounds same like they disparage word honest. To the circumstances she wasn't honest at all and that's why they put it in quotation marks as an irony. Teerkaa (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said again, you do not judge a source by its title alone. Heolkpop (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, the title is the part of the article, isn't it? Author decides about the title from some criterias and the title is important part of the whole article. For example: Title should catche your attention. If someone decides to put quotation marks for word like blackface it is questionable or isn't it? Billboard's article is written perfectly. I don't try doubt credibility The Korea Herald website. They are newsletter and they are relieble. I am pointing out specificaly about this written article. The author of this article Yoon Min-sik puts quotation marks in his/her titles for specific reasons: if there is(are) name(s) of book, song, restarurant etc., if is it whole citation of someone or on words where she/he put down meaning/importance/value of the word (honest, loser, swag). Basically, take it's importance with reserve. Blackface isn't word which you should put down of its importance with quotation marks. If someone writes misleading title it is questionable and obviously if this person has princip where to put quotation marks you will come to conclusion he/she take down value of the word blackface in the title of the article.Teerkaa (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt the author is even trying to put down its importance. It is very easy to assume things, isn't it? As you said, there are many reasons to use quotation marks, however out of all those reasons, why do you pick only "irony" for this? Why can't it be an emphasis just like the one in the source's last paragraph? Also, the Hyuna article which you mentioned is not even written by the same author of the source. Heolkpop (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, Hyuna's article isn't from the same author but it doesn't change the fact that this author has specific using of quotation marks. Blackface isn't name /title of something or isn't full citated sentence. As you said it is very easy to assume things. There isn't many options, in title isn't: They said and quotation marks with given word or title of something. So left 2 options: epression of so-called or irony. On wikipedia page you don't use blackface in quotation marks, you give it the value as a word and give to it an importance. Only blackface in quotation marks you use is with an adjective.(So this is so-called option(?), it is hurtful meaning with these adjectives and changes meaning of the word). You doubt it and I doubt it. It is really subjective view but for sure it is questionable of a true meaning of blackface in quotation marks in this title of the article. If is it so, wouldn't be better delete this source? We aren't sure how author meant it but for sure it is questionable. Teerkaa (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't find it questionable. And nope, that is not how you want a source to get removed. The content of the source plays a bigger role in this kind of decision. Heolkpop (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but how can someone say word as nope (why informal all of the sudden when we aren't friends) and then talk about article with posibility of degrading word blackface in the title of the article. The contenct is alright but in the title of your amazing source is really qustionable quotation marks about such a sensiteve word as a blackface. You didn't disprove the princip of the author's style of putting quotation marks. She/he really uses it the same way. You don't put blackface in quotation marks on your wikipedia page too. So basically you are deciding if is good or not but you are obviously subjecive about this topic. I don't know if is it your source or why you don't see blackface in quotation marks as possibility of authors decrasing value of the word. You wrote about blackface incident and how Mamamoo apologised but then as one of the sources you put article with questionable title. How can someone prefer content of source and ignore title of the article. The title can give different meaning of the word. I assume that you don't know about this topic from the first hand. Teerkaa (talk) 18:OO, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are still doubting, ask the senior editors here. Indeed, it is my decision not to remove the source. However, you have to remember that this is Wikipedia and anyone can edit. Heolkpop (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've skimmed through the discussion you've had here, and it seems that an important point has been missed, which may not be obvious to you as a non-native English speaker. Words are usually put in between quotation marks by news reports to demonstrate that the report is quoting others. It doesn't mean they're using it ironically; it means that news organisations have to be very careful what they do and don't say, because they can open themselves to being sued. It's common practice because it allows them to future-proof their reports by showing that the news agency isn't making a judgement, but that they're reporting other people's judgements. The current wording in the article "what many percieved [sic] as blackface" reflects this perfectly. Hope that helps. Marianna251TALK 18:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2018
"The group received criticisms for what many percieved as blackface when as part of the concert they played a video containing the members impersonating various personalities, one of which included the members wearing darker makeup to recreate a snippet of Uptown Funk.[50][51] The clip was cut from following concert dates and multiple apologies were promptly issued, including one directly from the members, stating that they were "extremely ignorant of blackface and did not understand the implications of our actions. We will be taking time to understand more about our international fans to ensure this never happens again."[52][53][54]"

This part should be removed. Group apologized and this shouldn't be hold against them. It'll make people hate them for something they did out of ignorance and apologized in 4 hours. This is a clear vandalism. 94.122.108.195 (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think their apology has any bearing on the relevancy. But I agree that it's silly to have it included, the scandal was irrelevant from a global/Korean point of view and this blurb is included in a career overview of a Korean group. It's not common to have random celebrity scandals mentioned in the career overview, unless they had some important consequences, for example T-ara's scandal is included because it has caused a major dip in the group's popularity, Super Junior Kangin's DUI scandal is included because it has caused the member to go on hiatus, but none of their other numerous scandals are mentioned, even though those garnered a lot of attention both domestically and globally. If this is okay to be included, I don't know what's stopping people from going into every group's article and plaguing half of their career overview with all their celebrity scandals and tabloid junk. This is Wikipedia, not an "offensive idols" Twitter thread.

However, we already discussed this above. My only concern at this point is about the precedent this sets. Even though I'm probably wasting my time here since no one with actual authority is going to respond and it will be decided by a random person on seniority basis. Mast321r (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope someone fixes this because this was very unnecessary to have it included. Zeykucuk (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This incident didn't affect their career so why are this being added? This create a precendet and soon enough all kpop idol will be had added all their scandals. I don't see Bomi's blackface on Apinks page or the ones that GD did in the past. Bts page name their lyrics controversy but no their antiblack stataments and their apology for it. The same goes to blackpink Jennie early this year. This incident being added into Mamamoo's page it's clearly and act of vandalism if this kind of info isn't going to be added in everyone page. Also Teen vogue as a source is a reach. Early this year Marie Claire's make an article about Rihanna and how she was Culturaly appropriating Chola Fashion. Is that Newsworthy enough to had her wiki page update? Nayra0506 (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ per Greyjoy. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 07:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Controversial parts should be adden in every idol page
So as some of you think the controversy part is "truly relevant for their career" enough to add ot and not wanton to remove it, then ota fair enough to add to every idol page their past problematic behaviors with of c ourse reliable sources and apologies (in the case they issued an apology)

So lets begin to research and add information about blackface of other idols who havent apologized, or cultural appropriation parts, that apparently aren't that important to add on their pages Viratvio (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Can start with bts exo gotta whole list  Bovie94 (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you think it's unfair for Mamamoo page to have criticism while others don't? Don't be so biased. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 08:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Being biased is not being fair to others. Just like you.

If one group has criticism to not be biased like you or the one who wrote it in their first place, the.n criticism should be added in others too. User AhnSoonKyung, ho was the first who added that irrelevant part, should add it too then to her already BigBang group page. That group has several controversies (blackface too) but i dont see it anywhere on that page, she obviously controls it. She is the one being biased, you too, not me. Viratvio (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you didn't realise, T.O.P and G-Dragon pages did mention their controversies. Nevertheless, other celebrities' page has no bearing on this. Also, see WP:COI. Heolkpop (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To conclude, if the controversies are being significantly covered by reliable sources, they have no reason to be removed. if you found other controversies about other idols with the above conditions met, you are welcomed to add them. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 03:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Such a discussion belongs on that article's talk page, not here. Jim1138 (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2018
On January 19, 2017 Mamamoo announced their second solo concert, titled “2017 Mamamoo Concert Moosical: Curtain Call” was held on March 3-5 in Seoul and August 19-20 in Busan at KBS Busan Hall.[48][49] The group received criticisms for what many percieved as blackface when as part of the concert they played a video containing the members impersonating various personalities, one of which included the members wearing darker makeup to recreate a snippet of Uptown Funk.[50][51] The clip was cut from following concert dates and multiple apologies were promptly issued, including one directly from the members, stating that they were "extremely ignorant of blackface and did not understand the implications of our actions. We will be taking time to understand more about our international fans to ensure this never happens again."[52][53][54]

"This section should be deleted, it will only harm their reputation, many kpop artists have also done ignorant mistakes dealing with culture yet it is not included in their wiki page, please consider the request to provide fair treatment". Mamamoo91 (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ The content you mentioned is supported by reliable sources. Also, please review WP:COI. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 07:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Mamamoo edit request
On January 19, 2017 Mamamoo announced their second solo concert, titled “2017 Mamamoo Concert Moosical: Curtain Call” was held on March 3-5 in Seoul and August 19-20 in Busan at KBS Busan Hall.[48][49] The group received criticisms for what many percieved as blackface when as part of the concert they played a video containing the members impersonating various personalities, one of which included the members wearing darker makeup to recreate a snippet of Uptown Funk.[50][51] The clip was cut from following concert dates and multiple apologies were promptly issued, including one directly from the members, stating that they were "extremely ignorant of blackface and did not understand the implications of our actions. We will be taking time to understand more about our international fans to ensure this never happens again This section should be deleted, it will only harm their reputation, many kpop artists have also done ignorant mistakes dealing with culture yet it is not included in their wiki page, please consider the request to provide fair treatment Ddd650626 (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 07:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi! This section needs to be deleted this create a precedent and soon enough all kpop idol page will have all their scandals. The blackface didn't affect their career at all. The source you use are wrong especially teen vogue. Like I say this is unfair is when I check big bang page didn't find GDs black faces or when I check BTS didn't fing their antiblack actions, the same with Blackpink and Red Velvet, Shinee, OMG, etc. Please remove this part. Nayra0506 (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2018
"On January 19, 2017 Mamamoo announced their second solo concert, titled “2017 Mamamoo Concert Moosical: Curtain Call” was held on March 3-5 in Seoul and August 19-20 in Busan at KBS Busan Hall.[48][49] The group received criticisms for what many percieved as blackface when as part of the concert they played a video containing the members impersonating various personalities, one of which included the members wearing darker makeup to recreate a snippet of Uptown Funk.[50][51] The clip was cut from following concert dates and multiple apologies were promptly issued, including one directly from the members, stating that they were "extremely ignorant of blackface and did not understand the implications of our actions. We will be taking time to understand more about our international fans to ensure this never happens again."[52][53][54]"

"This needs to be deleted, please look into other kpop idols controversial issues before putting mamamoo on blast". Mamamoo91 (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ One request is enough. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 07:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Source 51 for controversy in career section is incorrect.
Source 51 does not contain the clip in the VCR that refers to the blackface incident. Find the actual source or don’t put the source at all. Rbwtrash (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It's there to support that it was a "video containing the members impersonating various personalities", the referenced video is the edited version. The original is difficult/impossible to find for obvious reasons. Mast321r (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ removed the source. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 08:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What if the reference was moved at the end of the paragraph, as it also supports the point that it was "cut from following concert dates"? Mast321r (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Variety Shows
Can someone please update the Variety show list that's the only thing that is bothering, I (and others) want know what shows they been on that we haven't known yet of or upcoming ones PandaMcloven (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Guest appearance in variety shows are not listed, as per this discussion. Heolkpop (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Locked page
Hi! I have seen some incorrect information regarding concert attendance. The table shows 10k tickets sold for their 2018 concert. But the sourced article says no such thing. And I wanted to edit until I realised the page was locked. So I wanted to ask if it could be unlocked for me (I understand why it’s locked after seeing the frequent adds/removals of a certain edit) or if someone else could edit it for me?? The article only talks about how “a 5k seating concert sold out in 2 minutes” - nothing regarding how many tickets were sold :) I could try and look for another article that may mention # of tickets sold? Sssss951004 (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * A 5000 seating concert with two dates being sold out would imply 10000 tickets. The page can't be unlocked just for you, you can propose changes here and extended confirmed editors can make them for you. Or you can wait until the page gets unprotected on Aug 11. Mast3r (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it is misleading, as it does not state such a thing. And “imply” isn’t factual. 5k is full capacity - as in impossible to sell 5k tickets for a single date, bc it would mean no seats are cut off. No performer has ever had 5k for a single date - it is only mentioned on 1 of snsd tours but it is also not cited, so. Usually a two date concert at that venue gathers 7k-8k. I hope you see my point! Sssss951004 (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You obviously did more research on this than me, but how can it be impossible if there's a variable number of seated/standing tickets in the middle (playground) area? Mast3r (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean full capacity means as many people there could possibly be, as in there will be the utmost people standing and the stage setup won’t cut of any seats - which I find hard to believe since the gymnasium is round. So even if it was a center stage if would cut of space in the standing area. Sometimes capacities written are recorded attendances but they’re usually sourced, so i don’t think 5k was intended as that? Sssss951004 (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 170719 Mamamoo 마마무 02 (cropped).jpg