Talk:Snowdrop (South Korean TV series)/Archive 1

Excessive details
Hi there, I would like to discuss about inclusion of "ANSP's status as secret police" and details about Chun Young-cho's husband.

First of all, such inclusion of details about ANSP is against WP:SYNTHESIS. I have left the citations because I thought it would help any other editor understand the situation better who wants to verify the facts.

Secondly, I think details about Chun Young-cho's husband is not necessary. Even the source which was used was stating a comment from a netizen. I'm not saying these are irrelevant, neither I am being forceful towards its removal, that's why pinged you here. Thank you.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  05:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * : Hey there. Your concern about synthesis is valid, I've removed the self-reference and instead changed the information to verified information from Amnesty International. The classification of "secret police" can be tricky anyways. In my experience often it is done when the government in question is no longer in power, or the government is a political enemy as well as one that commits human rights violations. It's probably better to just let the facts dictate the ANSP's historical status.
 * However, I do still disagree about the point about Chun Young-cho's husband. It seems apparent that the entire scope of the complaint was taken into account when JTBC issued a response and changed the main character's name. That is, I think it was on their minds when they made the decision. Regarding the Chosun Ilbo source, while they do cite "netizens", the article cited "netizens" as the source of the complaint, but not where their own fact-checking came from. In the article, the point about Jung Moon-hwa was presented more or less as fact; I do not believe Chosun Ilbo would have published the information if they hadn't fact-checked it. He is indeed one of the names listed as a "communist conspirator" in historical documents (the Korean Wikipedia links to a different Jung Moon-hwa who I definitely do not believe is the right student activist). Unfortunately it can be hard to find factual sources, in Korean or in English, that describe the incident in high detail because it is a somewhat obscure incident that took place so long ago and under a repressive dictatorship that did not allow freedom of press at the time. Holidayruin (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Please explain your third revert. The coverage is in Korean, which is acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Can you please explain what sourcing you think needs to be in English? Furthermore, the controversy is part of the factual information on the television series. Information on the backlash about Snowdrop belongs in the "Pre-release backlash" section of the "Snowdrop" page. There is no other place where it would go. Holidayruin (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't understood WP:SYNTHESIS. It will be hard for me to explain in other words because English is not my first language. Take this edit for example 1 to understand what it means. In my edit summary 2, by English sources I meant about coverage by media not that other language sources can't be used. I regularly edit Korea related articles and I am pretty equipped with use of other language sources on wikipedia. You said: "It seems apparent that the entire scope of the complaint was taken into account when JTBC issued a response and changed the main character's name. That is, I think it was on their minds when they made the decision." But we can't presume anything on ourselves to fit the context. My entire point is just on "too much information" which I don't think is necessary, as this article is about television series and not about the controversy in it self. In your edit summary 3 you said, "The article is on the controversy," but it is not, articles like Great Rites Controversy are perfect examples of Wikipedia article on any controversy.
 * Closure: I was writing the explanation but you asked me to answer before I published my edit.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  06:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I understand your concern about synthesis now. I can see now what you mean, but there is significant context I think is missing here. For any Korean, the ANSP as well as the whole Chun Doo-hwan government is immediately associated with the human rights abuses mentioned (especially extrajudicial killings and water torture). This goes to explain why sources that talks about the ANSP don't mention in explicit detail all about the ANSP. To a Korean, the association is as immediate as an American's mental associations regarding "Russian communists" or "Nazis", the context is already understood to be understood. The article doesn't have to go into excruciating detail. I had to bring in the context about the ANSP's specific abuses because I understood that they were not known by the non-Korean reader.
 * On the other point, controversy itself is often covered on media pages on Wikipedia. Take Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) or The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film) or Mulan (2020 film). The page for Fahrenheit 9/11 doesn't go into a ton of detail because it links to Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies as that whole page would be too long put in the article about the movie, which does not apply here. These pages go into explicit detail about what the controversy surrounding the work of media was. Regarding your example of the Great Rites Controversy, while the article for Yang Tinghe does mention the Controversy (part of the proper name of the actual event), if the article for Yang Tinghe was more expansive there is a good chance there would be a separate section in the article for the Great Rites Controversy.
 * The detail about Chun Young-cho's husband being accused of being a spy is relevant to the drama about a student that falls in love with a student who turns out to be a spy (accusation of being a communist spy was common during the Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan authoritarian administrations, similar to other non-USSR-aligned dictators like Ferdinand Marcos and Suharto). It gives proper detail as to why the name was changed. A book regarding Chun Young-cho, including details about her husband, was released in 2017 and there are suspicions that the drama took undue, corrupted influence from the book, down the drama's central premise of falling in love with a "spy". I do think it is worthwhile to point out that there are more than a few coincidental similarities to the real life story of Chun Young-cho. Then the reader can make their own conclusion. Holidayruin (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I now understand that you want readers to understand the viewpoint of Koreans. But I am still against adding about ANSP in that way. I have added 1 about Chun Young-cho's husband. Be bold make any edit and don't be offended about edit war as it is part of editing on wikipedia. Please feel free to correct my mistakes. Happy editing.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  08:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * : Thank you for understanding. I think it looks good now. The only change I made from here is that I re-added the Amnesty International report because I found it to be a good source. Holidayruin (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Snowdrop will be aired on Disney+
is this Korean drama dangerous on Disney+? Why isn't it scheduled to be aired on Star? - St3095  (?)  15:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your first question. About second, how would I know? I reverted your edit just because the source cited only mentions Disney+ and not Star.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  05:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

False claims of communist agents during the Chun Doo-hwan administration
Regarding your last two reverts (1 2)

It is a well documented fact that the Chun Doo-hwan administration often created false charges of being a communist/North Korean agent in order to wrongfully pursue innocent opposition activists throughout the entire period of the regime. The death of Park Jong-cheol, a key inciting incident of the 1987 Democratization Movement, occurred at the Anti-Communist Office of Namyoung-dong (남영동 대공분실) where many other activists were framed as spies and tortured during the entire Chun regime. A few more examples of the Chun regime falsely imprisoning activists on espionage charges for being communist spies include the Burim case, the Hakrim case, and the Aramhoe case. And of course, there is Gwangju; I'd advise not to engage in pro-authoritarian historical revisionism on the subject, especially considering how it is at best only tangentially related to the topic at hand as well as its extremely sensitive and alt-right nature.

I am reverting your edit, while broadening the scope of the Chun regime's false charges from just the 1987 movement to the entire period of the administration. Holidayruin (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please present your objections to my recent edits regarding this. This would be the "discuss" portion of the BRD. If a proper discussion is not had then the revert is considered unwarranted and will be undone within a day or so. Holidayruin (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Holidayruin You should discuss about the leaked drama synopsis and JTBC only, and not add WP:UNDUE into the existing section. Furthermore, what -ink&fables mentioned in the edit summary is not wrong, those written are indeed Korean netizens comments as seen from the supporting references hence quoting it is correct. Lastly, as mentioned, take note of WP:BRD.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  06:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It is presenting known fact as simply opinions of netizens, as if they weren't evoking factual knowledge already well-known by Koreans. It would be like calling real historical information on WWII in the article The Man in the High Castle (TV series) "Undue" because that's not the way it played out in the drama. The real-life context around a piece of media, including controversy and its reason, is obviously important to understanding it and is relevant to its Wiki page. Also the quotes around "false" in " 'false' claims" are suggesting that the Chun administration never accused innocent activists of being communists, which would indeed be incorrect. Holidayruin (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Holidayruin You are suppose to write it in NPOV not in Korean-POV, maybe I interpret your sentence wrongly, but to me, you trying say, every readers of this article are strictly Koreans only or people with deep understanding of Korean history, which is wrong. For the "false claims" portion, you may have read/interpret it wrongly, as no where did the existing sentence implies as what you mentioned. However, a paraphrase would be needed for that sentence only provided the paraphase doesn't add WP:UNDUE to it.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  06:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Netizens pointed that the reveal of the male protagonist as a North Korean spy invokes "false" claims made during the 1980 Gwangju Uprising by then-President Chun Doo-hwan that framed pro-democracy protesters as North Korean spies in defense of government's lethal suppression." with quotes around "false" implies that the claims true and that there were North Korean instigators. Contextually it invokes historical revisionism on Gwangju that is a continual alt-right talking point in Korea (see linked article above or Wikipedia article Gwangju Uprising), although I will still assume good faith on the part of that editor. Also Gwangju has little or nothing to do with this article.
 * It is clearly necessary to mention the context around why the backlash occurred. That is part of what an encyclopedia source like Wikipedia should do. This is still WP:NPOV, it's simply stating historical facts, which then inform the readers as to why Korean netizens had such a strong reaction to the script. That is necessary; leaving the reader without the historical information context would leave them bereft on why the backlash occurred in the first place. Leave it out, and the reader's understanding on this drama (vis a vis understanding its backlash) is incomplete because of an incomplete article. Holidayruin (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * the "false" in quotes is to highlight what netizens are saying not anything else.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  07:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "false" should be false, because the claims were false. This is a fact. Holidayruin (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Holidayruin Yes, I understand what you mean by the quotation mark with the false, which was why I say, you read/interpret it wrongly, which I also say, it needed to be paraphrase so the meaning is straightforward and not brain-twister (aka hard to interpret it correctly). The context is already there and linked on why the backlash even happened, simply because of the synopsis and drama scripts was leaked online, in which Korean netizens became furious because the synopsis and drama scripts was "mostly" the same as events of 1980. Furthermore, JTBC also released multiple press release to address the issues. Adding anything further derive from the television series is simply WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, I agreed fully with -ink&fables comment below.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  07:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the context is incomplete because the phrasing of the paragraph is suggesting that historical facts are just their opinions. I wrote this below, but if your issue is that the directly linked sources do not mention the historical facts that contextualize the backlash directly, then some Korean-language sources such as these (1 2) should do and we can add them in. I think it shouldn't even be necessary, considering the backlash was on the Korean netisphere where that historical factual context was understood to be understood. Still if this is your objection we can even find more like these new sources.Holidayruin (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How can presenting historical fact be giving an opinion undue weight? WP:UNDUE has little to do with this discussion; in this context giving the opinion undue weight would be suggesting that most people agreed with the backlash against Snowdrop or thought it should be cancelled. That's not my edits, I'm just showing the needed factual context to opinions that are already documented. Holidayruin (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Expanding beyond the leaked synopsis and character profiles, and JTBC press releases, is simply adding WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. I believe/assume that you want to change Netizens pointed that the reveal of the male protagonist as a North Korean spy invokes "false" claims made during the 1980 Gwangju Uprising by then-President Chun Doo-hwan that framed pro-democracy protesters as North Korean spies in defense of government's lethal suppression., is that correct? As I have mentioned above, this sentence should be paraphrased to avoid misinterpret such as you did. I believe there are more, you want to expand on, as such, draft it in your reply.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  07:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just the edit I made that you reverted. It's pretty NPOV to me. Holidayruin (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Holidayruin Nope you are supposed to discuss it which was I asked you draft it instead of editing it directly as you may add undue, and/or original research.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  08:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, you said "Gwangju has little or nothing to do with this article". I think you should read this latest article by The Korea Times—. It clearly states about Gwangju Uprising.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  07:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the same sentence that source states that the controversy was over "glamorizing North Korean spies," which is just not true as per all other sources. And the article sort of implies that the historical "framing as North Korean spies" issue was only over Gwangju, which I've already shown is untrue as well, as it was omnipresent throughout Chun's entire reign. Lowkey, it's kind of a bad article? Holidayruin (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

first thing we need to keep in our mind is that this article is about Snowdrop, the television series. And the section Pre-release backlash should be based on sources which directly talks about controversy surrounding the drama. We are not supposed to do any original research or synthesise the content based on various sources. We are only supposed to summarise what is there written in the reliable sources.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  06:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not original research or synthesizing the content. It is explaining why the backlash occurred. If your objection is that the sources do not directly state historical fact, this article can serve well, or this one, as they both discuss the drama and state historical facts that serve as context for the backlash. We can add them to the Wikipedia article. But at this point it appears your objection is including this real information altogether? Holidayruin (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I wont be able to reply for atleast next 9 hours.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  07:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I rephrased the sentences to satisfy your concerns. I used the Hankook Ilbo source provided by you to give the inline citations. Although I didn't remove initial words like Netizens pointed that and Netizens also criticized. Now, I think it clearly shows that the these were the concerns of netizens which were true and right. Thank you.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  16:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit is okay with me. Thanks. Holidayruin (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"Blackpink fans calling the Lee Han-yeol Memorial Museum"
Hi regarding your last revert -

That was a misread and mistake on my part. I misunderstood the information from the sources I posted. To clarify, it does appear that one fan posted the idea to call the museum, which was screenshotted, but that those harassing phone calls were not made. Unless I hear otherwise this appears to be the case.

The current edit is fine by me.

Holidayruin (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Last paragraph of 'Controversy' section
Hi, you're completely right for marking the Korea JoongAng Daily source as unreliable and I think it should be removed asap. But I also think it is important to highlight both the sides. For example a film director Jeong Yoon-cheol and former professor and critic Chin Jung-kwon  have voice their opinion against the cancellation of the drama and pretty much talks about what the last paragraph is saying. It would be better idea to replace with these opinions.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  05:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey . I appreciate these suggestions. I've added them to the paragraph and removed the JoongAng Ilbo source (edit). Thanks. Holidayruin (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Viewership
Context:

Hi, how can we call a rating to be lowest when we don't know all the ratings. I think it can be said in the opposite way also. Both red and blue highlights should be removed if all the ratings are not known. If one or two would have been missing then it could have been acceptable but five episodes ratings are absent. It is misleading this way. I don't think something being a convention makes it right. No one questioned it till now doesn't makes it perfect. And I think all those "thousands of South Korean TV series articles" should be changed, because it is wrong.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  08:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @-ink&fables It isn't wrong, Seoul data is only recorded for Top 10 for Cable or Top 20 for Public broadcasting network where it's only trackable via Nielsen Korea official website, Naver nor Daum provide such data. Simply put, Seoul data is tracked differently from Nationwide data, where there is simply no #11-#100 place as those are not tracked by Nielsen Korea as suppose to Nationwide where #11–#100 is tracked. Hence, it isn't wrong to indicate the lowest and highest released ratings. Furthermore, I don't see why this article must be different ... because of having a certain individual cast making it special that all previous convention has to change ... not the first time I noticed something "weird" about this article.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  08:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It is very wrong in its basic statistics. You cannot call a person to be shortest in the group of ten people just by measuring the height of five.
 * Nielsen Korea also only releases top 10 for nationwide ratings on its official website. Naver, Daum, and news outlets have access to all. My question has never been over how/where it is released or why it is not released. The question here is about the presentation, which is wrong.
 * There is no consensus on Wikipedia over what you are saying. And I don't know if this topic has been ever discussed or not. This is not just about this article. I have never come across any such situation in the articles I have been interested. But if it exists, it should be corrected.
 * I don't know why there is a need for you to question the intention behind any user's actions, until they work without neutral point of view and show any conflict of interest. No one is paid on Wikipedia for their edits (disregarding few exceptions). One edits any article, if they have interest in that topic. Your argument is invalid.
 * And, if you've seen something "weird" on this article earlier, you should have voiced your opinion. I don't think anyone can stop a user from voicing their opinion on Wikipedia.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  09:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @-ink&fables I had made an update in revision 1065989951 to try to resolve it the incorrect wording to made it explictly states what is what, however it seems that you've no interest in having all that "nonsense" (my good faith edit is certainly self-proclaimed bullshit I guess) but wanting to just to remove the red and/or blue emphasis text because "It is very wrong in its basic statistics" when a simple reword that my good faith edit did in revision 1065989951 would have clear the confusion on what is what. "Nielsen Korea also only releases top 10 for nationwide ratings on its official website", pretty much what I had said, nationwide ratings are available from #11–#100 position via Naver and Daum, Korean news outlets also rarely reports about ratings that are not within top 10/20 for nationwide ratings pertaining to Nielsen with certain exception such as if the series has someone prominent or there were controversy in that episode. I never said you're not editing in NPOV or has COI, neither did I said you're paid to do so, I just questioning on why having certain individual cast have to make this article in particular having a different treatment to the viewership table that breaks consistency ... btw, the viewership table is already considered as good for this article, look around other articles, you won't even find individual references for each episode but just a single Nielsen Korea reference with date set to some random date with title that tell the reader to go search by themselves by changing the date, those are bad. I'm not going answer on why I didn't voice my opinion despite not restricted in doing so due to off-wiki WP:PA encountered before due to superficial matters of simply opposing to RfC, don't ask me why no recourse because the admins couldn't do anything either.
 * Tldr, I oppose removing red and/or blue emphasis text as the notes section can simply be reworded to be more explictly on what the table data are which was pretty much what I did in revision 1065989951.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  10:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tldr, I oppose removing red and/or blue emphasis text as the notes section can simply be reworded to be more explictly on what the table data are which was pretty much what I did in revision 1065989951.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  10:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence of 'Controversy' section
Hey regarding your change of the lead sentence of the Controversy section from "Snowdrop ​became the subject of controversy due to accusations of harmful misrepresentations of historical events." to "Snowdrop became the subject of controversy due to accusations of historical distortion."

Firstly, please tag your reverts as reverts, I did not see your revert when I should have because of this. I know it was a mobile edit and I don't at all think there was anything nefarious about it, I tend to do that too by accident.

The issue with the phrasing "historical distortion" is that it is not well-understood by the English-speaking reader, as "historical distortion" doesn't really exist as a phrase in English. "Historical distortion" is a word-for-word translation of "역사 왜곡", a commonly used phrase in Korean-language conversations about Snowdrop (source1, source2, source3). The closest English translation of "역사 왜곡" would be historical negationism; "역사 왜곡" or "historical negationism" is also distinct from historical revisionism as "historical revisionism" can semantically imply something positive such as the addition of new facts and data, while "역사 왜곡" signifies something strictly negative.

I'm changing the lead sentence to "Snowdrop became the subject of controversy due to accusations of historical negationism.  " However I would like to change the lead sentence to "Snowdrop ​became the subject of controversy due to accusations of harmful misrepresentations of historical events.   " as this is the definition of historical negationism. I primarily want to change it to that sentence because the reader might not know outright the definition of "historical negationism" as it can be an obscure term, and I believe it would benefit the article to explain the term right there understandably.

I think my suggestion would benefit the article. Please let me know what you think of it. Holidayruin (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no control over marking any edits as revert or not. It has always been an automated process for me. If Wikipedia system didn't mark my edits as reverts, I can't do anything. I am fine with "historical negationism". For anyone to know the meaning, it is just a click away. Also I have made changes to the fourth paragraph under post release. Those institutions are not related to June Struggle? They are memorial NGOs in the honour and memory of student activists. I have made it clear, because at first the statement felt like those institutions directly led the 1987 movement. Also I have removed their biographical information, but have ensured to add that their deaths were pivotal in June Struggle.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  13:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, folks... Former writing professor here, not that it matters one iota. I was just noticing some oddities about Snowdrop's page and this back and forth over the term had me thinking a kind of obvious solution if you haven't quite settled into your "historical distortion/negationism/revisionism" terminology. While it is true English rarely has precise translations for Eastern Asian languages (SE Asian as well) so "historical distortion" is a bit structurally funky in English, but... we do fairly often say that an explanation (be it from Holocaust denying sorts or 5 year olds recreating what ACTUALLY happened at the playground and who "DID IT" whatever it is!) is [in this case accused of] distorting [facts regarding/details of/insert 100 other wording options] historical events. That said, harm is something you TRULY can only use here if quoting/translating VERY directly and saying very clearly that this/that group alleged that it was harmful *then say how* to remain properly neutral. Didn't mean to come and lecture. I had a totally different curiosity here but saw this and thought, "There are a thousand ways to make 'historical distortion' a smooth English phrase, yet no one simply wrote distortion of historical events? Huh!" Onto what I was really curious about. Take my thoughts as thoughts to keep, leave, or DESTROYYYYYY. :) Cheers! Nallukka (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Episodes (summaries)
I am mostly just curious why we have episode summaries up for this particular show-I get that there's a LOT of hype over it, but where are the summaries FROM? If they are just one viewer's take on it and not something official from Disney Plus or JTBC, should we be having them? I did not see a SOURCE for the summaries, so maybe THAT is my real inquiry-where did they come from? :) Shows like (recently aired, highly rated to compare half-fairly) Red Sleeve (and nearly all other Korean dramas, really, except for some that are significant because of the Hallyu wave and such or simply because Wikipedia lacked a sort of standard TV show layout for a very long time so some older content reads-or did read when I saw them eons ago-like personal essays by a couple of passionate fans). Anyway, if they aren't official descriptions from JTBC/Disney plus, isn't having users on here summarize the plot the way -they- viewed it... hmm, more a MyDramaList or DRAMA WIKI (/other fandom wiki) thing to do versus a "just the facts, ma'am" Wikipedia "proper" thing? Did my eyes just jump over the number/reference somewhere, or were they just someone's personal descriptions vs more Wiki-typical descriptions from relevant third parties (creators/licensed broadcasters)? Nallukka (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)