Talk:Sexualization and sexual exploitation in K-pop

Untitled
Well done. Although you're still making more progress, the current draft demonstrates an in-depth coverage of the topic. I will revisit your page later and see what is added to each of the remaining sub-topics, but in the meantime, how would you plan to write on sexual exploitation? You've probably seen a number of internet sources on, for instance, sponsorship, but it might be quite difficult to find reliable sources given the difficulty of breaking silence even in this era of the metoo movement. (http://www.asiaone.com/entertainment/korean-celebrities-find-it-difficult-break-silence-sexual-exploitation)

Hkim856 (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC) Your article is in good shape. As we spoke last time, a slight reorganization would be great if you want to create a new article. Please add a short lead section and two or three sub-sections including 1) historical context, 2) Critical Issues and/or 3) Controversies. I would include the first two big paragraphs (in your current version) in Historical Context. The tricky part can be the second one, but both of your discussion on female/male sexualities would fit better in the second, not the last one. What are your thoughts on that? Hkim856 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tfs0.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 9 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Athenabantis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerns on tone
This reads like a political statement rather than a neutral article and I have concerns about accuracy in some places. For now, I can just address the introduction:

With its maturation[1] since the 1980s, when K-pop was a conservative genre, '''Can we really say K-pop existed in the 1980s? The phenomenon known as K-pop is really a product of the 21st century. Pop music may have existed in Korea in the 1980s, but I would separate it from the K-pop boom. If K-pop has roots, I would concede maybe it started with Seo Taiji and Boys in the 1990s.'''

the music genre has become sexualized. '''This is far too broad a statement. Korean society has certainly become sexualised, but to say the music genre is sexualised is going too far.'''

This is in part due to 21st century globalization[2] and the advent of music videos on social media, most specifically, YouTube.[3] '''The sexualisation of music began a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. MTV was responsible for the sexualisation of music (in the 80s). And I don't think you can hold YouTube responsible for the sexualisation of music. Again, too big a leap.'''

K-pop was adopted by the Japanese idol system in the 90s,[1] '''Is this bad English? The Japanese idol system existed before the 1990s and the Band Boom of the late 80s overtook it as a musical phenomenon. Surely Korea adopted the Japanese style, not the other way around?'''

which brought with it the western male gaze[4] and Lolita culture[5] '''No, Japanese music was and largely still is trapped within Japan, so if there is a sexualisation, it comes from within Japan. You can't blame Western males for this. Yes, there is a Lolita culture in Japan and this has exploded with the success of AKB48 and other groups.'''

which eventually morphed into a global phenomenon over a twenty year time frame.[1] Currently, K-pop idols are "manufactured" to optimize profit by catering to fan desires.[1] In general, male and female idols follow normative feminine and masculine traits, respectively, as defined by the South Korean patriarchal system '''Quite wrong, I think. I would say that many K-pop artists represent the opposite 'ideals' of the 'South Korean patriarchal system' and more closely reflect the desires of the consumers, which invaraiably are the musicians' contemporaries.'''

and in conjunction with a globally desired façade.[6] Femininity is often defined by a suppressed doll state conforming to Lolita ideals. These ideals consist of a slim figure, long legs and a perfect face.[4][7] '''The ideal woman may be a figment of the imagination of the patriarchal system, but very often even the top groups don't conform to these ideals. Not every female K-pop star has 'a slim figure, long legs and a perfect face.

Korean masculinity requires a soft or cosmopolitan masculinity. That males are expected to be strong and virile, but also possess soft features such as a sweet personality and a cute face.[8] I feel that metrosexuality for males is more strongly valued than traditional male sexuality and virility

The manifestation of sexualization is represented in every part of the idol republic, '''Are you conflating K-pop with idols? The traditional idol genre is very different (see Japan).'''

but is most commonly found among modern music videos, which have become increasingly sexualized over the last decade.[3] Again, an over-generalisation.

It should also be noted that female idols are often objectified more than male idols, something that is complementary to the patriarchal Korean culture.[9] '''If it was true, this statement would be right. It's BTS who are taking over the world, not Kara or Twice. And I would posit that the image of women in music videos is the very opposite of that that would appeal to Korea's patriarchal culture''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtkiog (talk • contribs) 00:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This needs to be reviewed entirely
The tone of this article is off, it's highly biased and doesn't even try to show any degree of objectivity. This needs to be reviewed, revised, and ultimately edited to allow for a broader, fairer view on the topic. An encyclopedic entry should not be an essay on the authors opinion, but an in depth analysis on a topic, where all points of view (or as many as possible) are considered. This reads more like a thinkpiece or an opinion article than an academic entry. I don't mean to say it's not valuable at all, but it's lacking in intellectual and academic integrity and it really doesn't belong in this site, as it currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.27.195 (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I don't know if you planned to check back for a response, but I've re-tagged the article for attention by (hopefully) the right people to do such a rewrite. Unfortunately, many of these tasks need to be done for a lot of articles, and so the people that are qualified are very busy and such tags aren't processed in any order. There isn't really much else we can do to draw attention unless you want to try one of the WP:Noticeboards to get more attention for specific issues. Rewriting an entire article will be a long process—there are far smaller projects that are taking me months (though admittedly I suck at writing, and suck even more at writing fast)—so if you have any suggestions at all (on what could be implemented, what could make things go faster or just some general thoughts on what the rewritten article should look like) your input would probably be appreciated. Cheers! Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Should it be deleted entirely instead? Such an article feels like it's trying to prove to the reader that K-Pop has become overly sexualized to the fault of American and Japanese influences. There is no such similar article about American, Japanese, or any other genre. Additionally, it seems like the type of article that assumes that we would consider sexuality within pop culture to be a bad or exploitative thing. I just don't see how this article could be fixed to become neutral when the premise of it existing is already accusatory. I don't want to leap to just submitting it as an article for deletion, before hearing someone else's opinion.216.81.94.71 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It's June 2021, this wikipedia page still very much exists, and the last reply to this talk page is almost two years old. I don't know if anyone still cares, but I utterly, completely, and absolutely agree with the original post and the second reply; this wikipedia page needs to go ASAP. There's absolutely no point in editing a page written with entirely a biased point-of-view in mind (still can't believe no one does something about this page already). I'm a newbie to wikipedia, so if anyone knows how to delete a page, please do so immediately. In the meantime, I'll try to find out if I can delete it myself.

WinterFanboy (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Unneccesary update: I tried a proposed deletion two times (friendly reminder: I'm a literal newbie here) and both got removed for being "too controversial". I was suggested to bring this to AFD level, but I personally don't think I'm ready yet for any "Wikipedia debates" since I'm still unfamiliar with everything, and I don't feel confident that I can provide arguments to the best of my abilities against more "experienced" editors without an amount of Wikipedia experience and knowledge on my side as well. Additionally, I'm still figuring out how a deletion is supposed to be controversial when the Wikipedia page in question is clearly written in a non-neutral point of view and it's tone is deviating far from an encyclopedic entry. So, I'll take the backseat for a while in this issue, and watch this page for any future edits (if present) a little while longer. I still think that this page serves no purpose in Wikipedia aside from being accusatory towards K-pop, and I will keep trying to exhaust all possibilities of deleting it before I shift my focus to any other possible alternative.

WinterFanboy (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what exactly is wrong with this article. It is well-sourced and informational. I wanna assume good faith here, but these "concerns" just seems to be stemming from overenthusiastic K-pop fans who doesn't wish to see the more negative aspects of it, especially when phrases such as "this wikipedia page needs to go ASAP" or threatening to engage in tendentious editing by wanting to "exhaust all possibilities of deleting it" (WP:RGW) is being thrown about even though deletions has been rejected twice. That's not how this works, please see WP:NOTCENSORED. There's nothing wrong with liking this genre (I do listen to it myself) without also understanding and being nuanced as to how the industry works behind the scenes. The fact that the edit history also shows a bunch of random accounts/IPs attempting to blank and vandalize the entire page just goes to show that there is some coordinated effort going on attempting to downplay it. MarkDeux (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)