Talk:Blackpink

lead style

It seems to me like the lead has three paragraphs exclusivelly dedicated to the group achievements, prizes and such, which does not reflect how Wikipedia envision a lead section on his manual of style.

According to Wikipedia guidelines the lead section should establish context and include mentions of significant criticism or controversies. Context is extremelly underdeveloped, which is particularly strange for a group that is so prominent, and no controversy or criticism is present, of which there could be none, I am no expert to judge.

This issue in the lead section is by no means only reserved to Blackpink, it is shared by mostly K-pop groups and should be, in my opinion, fixed. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

removal of "female empowerement" from lead

User @Lightlylove removed the usage of "female empowerement" from lead, I reverted their edit because there is a source on the article that says (deepl translation) "has become a “wannabe” in Korea and around the world for its empowering female songs" https://m.entertain.naver.com/article/421/0006550347

I think it is important to discuss this kind of removal of information on the talk page first. As per wikipedia guidelines "when not to remove content" If there is a source that you believe to be misrepresented, or not reliable, or invalid for any other reason, the matter should be raised on the article's talk page.

In this specific case I found another very good nuanced source, for exemple, that describes how Blackpink is associated with girl crush and female empowerement, what it means etc https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/girl-crush-k-pop-feminism-2018-8491604/ The current place on lead seems appropriate to me, but it could be developped further into the lead following this and other sources. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a part of Wikipedia sourcing that is not properly understood here, i'd like to you explain, every Wikipedia editor should know that when something is not croncrete it fails under the misinformation section, the two most important factors when sourcing material in a article is context, the way we interpret what they said from what is actually real, most articles about this group's music is written by writers who listen to their music and get their information from common belief, for example Blackpink's Lisa is heavily called as a "dancing machine" by the K-pop fans, you would find information like this in every article that talks about them whether it be high-prestige websites like Billboard or not, this is entertainment writing, they write how the media and fans community percieves them, the media views them as a group that is known for making female empowerment simply because most of their songs talk about how they are capable of achieving everything they want, it's interpreted, but this group has never had a song when they option to empower a female audience, they only had songs where they empower themselves and the sole topic is just themselves and their success, as they are women obviously this gets misunderstood as them directing this to a female audience, the problem is that they are actually not.

Blackpink's company YGE has never stated from their own words, in any report, or in any interview/ocassion that the group is marketed as "female empowerment group" neither the members themselves of this group, they in fact have been asked multiple times about this and they instead shift the topic or deviate from it just to avoid talking about girl power, in fact they only revitialized what their original concept this, they only talk about their colors as a group and each of the members personalities and what they have to give, they only reply on how the "black and pink" concept they had empowers them and their confidence, solidifying even more that they have a concept of self-empowerment not "female empowerment", the label never marketed this a group as such, neither did the girls, they only been called like this over and over again by the fans, the media and the k-pop community, because most of them want to believe this in order to attract a poder audience to their music cause they know most people are interested in the female empowerment demographic in pop culture, the only problem? That their company neither them have claimed to be a "female empowerment" group, they had only claimed to be a "self-empowerment" group according to what their "black and pink" concept stands for, Billboard saying that they are known for making female empowerment songs, is like Billboard attempting to say that they've sold 100 million records, nobody would believe they sold all that much but fans would still take it into account cause Billboard is a source with high reputation right? Most of these websites get all the artists information from fan websites, kpop websites, social media and even Wikipedia, you"ll be amazed of how many Wikipedia biographied and data are included into articles from high-prestige websites like Billboard, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, NME, etc etc in articles where they talk about these groups or any artist un general, i agree that there should be a talk page discussion when reverting things however i did not engage myself in conversation cause this time is a rule to revert any misleading information by facts in WP. Lightlylove (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Biographied* in general*

Expelling corrections. Lightlylove (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Biographies* Lightlylove (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for coming to discuss the edit.

First of all, have you actually read the billboard article I added as source? It is way more nuanced that you may think.

A few other things:

1) Even though I think you have a point about a lot of sources of K-pop material being very promotional oriented, they are still providing a reading into the songs. As you can see just before in the talk page, I have expressed my concerns as well about this very issue, the lead and the article being promotional.

But still, even though an article is almost exclusively "positive" removing informations is not how you make it more nuanced. What we can do is instead *adding* sources and writing that can make it interesting.

2) The company or the artists do not have to explain their music. Other people can analyze it and be a legitimate source. This is also how the lead presents that piece of information. This is valid for every art.

3) Regarding "self empowerment" it seems like you think that it means that the members are only "promoting themselves", like the real selves, and for that reason you agree on keeping the information. I'd say that a lot singers sing about characters that rely on their life, one way or another, and Teddy (the producer of Blackpink) said he writes thinking about the members life. Still that doesn't mean that it cannot empower others that will identify themselves in that song story/energy. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"K-pop girl group" in the lead

User Flabshoe1 removed the addition of K-pop before girl group in the lead, under the reasoning that "South Korean already covers K-pop". This seems clearly false to me. South Korean does not covers Kpop at all. To avoid launching empty reversions I think it is better to discuss it here. Why a K-pop group shouldn't be called a... K-pop group? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)