| Revision as of 23:17, 30 September 2012 editCastncoot (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers57,954 edits →ABC (good morning america) quote← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:33, 30 September 2012 edit undoCurb Chain (talk | contribs)18,691 edits →ABC (good morning america) quote: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 246: | Line 246: | ||
| :::We have a consensus for restoration here, will restore the quote. ] (]) 23:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | :::We have a consensus for restoration here, will restore the quote. ] (]) 23:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| At which point in the video does it exactly say those words you quoted (in the quote box)? Secondly, you are using pushing ] to give ] to this quote because | |||
| # it is a major newspaper, which is using ] by editors to determine it is a major newspaper | |||
| # you are pulling this quote out of a number of different sentences spoken in the video | |||
| # you are giving ] to this quote because you are deliberately putting it in its own box, out of context, to HIGHLIGHT this quote.] (]) 23:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:33, 30 September 2012
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gangnam Style article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 20 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Language explanation
Is this supposed to be an article about a Korean song or the Korean language? 186.178.110.47 (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This paragraph/sentence...
"In Korean colloquialism, "오빤 강남 스타일 (Oppan Gangnam style)" may be translated as "I am (loving) the Gangnam style." or literally translated as "I am Gangnam style." or "A Gangnam-styled girl is my style." because the Korean word 오빠 (oppa), which is a noun meaning "a female's elder brother" but can be also used as a first-, second- or third-person masculine pronoun to designate a male who is elder or older than a female, is used as a first-person pronoun in this phrase and 오빤 (oppan) is an abbreviation of 오빠는 (oppaneun) which is translated as "I am" when 오빠 (oppa) is used as a first-person pronoun."
...is virtually incomprehensible. I'd have a got at cleaning it up myself but I'd probably interpret the explanation wrong since I don't know Korean. MuJoCh (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
오빠는 강남 스타일 (오빤 강남 스타일) translates well into "Big brother's Gangnam Style" or in the sense that 오빠 is used as first-person "My Gangnam Style". "I am Gangnam Style" doesn't really make a lot of sense imo ㅜㅜ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.67.171 (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's the literal translation, which does somehow fit into the comic nature of the music video. Anyway, I hopefully clarified the situation in the latest version. --C S (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I speak Korean. In my sense, "Oppan Ganngam style" means "I like a girl in Gangnam style". --Cheol (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Italics for quotations?
Is there any reason that italics are being used instead of or in addition to quotation marks for quotations? If not, I'm removing the italics. Mjworthey (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The reason is that there are so many quotations it will be difficult to read if there are too many quotation marks. "do you think its easier" to "read this" sentence with "so many quotation marks", or would it be better to standardize everything with italics?
i think its better to read with italics because there are so many quotations, but if you have lots of free time and you think its wrong to use italics for quotations then go ahead and change it. EDIT : its only my second time editing on wikipedia so if you really think yours is better then do itA1candidate (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Quoting is a well-established convention in English. It's not something that is just for Misplaced Pages. Please put any new quotations in quotes, not italics. Incidentally, if you tend to write sentences like your example, that's bad writing to begin with (not that I haven't done that myself on occasion). If quoting (rather than italicizing) makes that bad writing more obvious, I consider that a plus. --C S (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
You've missunderstood me, I never said quotations shouldnt be allowed, all I said was that I use italics more often than quotations, sometimes even both because it makes things easier to read. if you dont like something please change it :) A1candidate (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, just an FYI: italics should not be used for quotations. Please see WP:MOSQUOTE. SKS (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
It would be better to paraphrase the quotations where possible because the text is becoming incomprehensible. Too many quotations and redundant ones too. The article structure is hectic and contains unnecessary sections, like "Factors that have led to Gangnam Style's widespread popularity" - this should be done in a more concise, encyclopedic form and not through a way of quoting every possible news article you can find on the internet. The article right now is nothing more than a mishmash of news clippings... I am currently working on a featured article for huwiki, when I ready i might clean up this one too but I don't have the capacity now to work on two articles at the same time.小龙 (Timish) # 14:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want to pile on too much additional criticism here, since A1candidate has been doing a tremendous amount of work. Nonetheless, I have to agree with Teemeah. There is not enough discretion in what is being chosen to be added. It seems anything even remotely related is being thrown in the article and that material is not being added in a well-written way, but mashed together with too many quotations. Just to point out a representative sample, in the lead section (before the table of contents), we see:
According to the German national daily newspaper Die Welt, "Gangnam Style" is spreading like a "Lauffeuer" (wildfire), and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation writes that millions around the globe have become "obsessed".
- This is silly. It is unnecessarily detailed. If the intent is just to say Gangnam style is spreading rapidly with millions becoming big fans... well, there are far better ways to say so. In fact, the other facts mentioned (such as the rapidity of Youtube views) are sufficient to back up such a statement. --C S (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
However, a recent edit by A1candidate did remove so much information that I believe some relevant information also got lost. It felt too hasty and was just too extreme of an edit. Perhaps we should focus on condensing, not the deletion of many whole sections at once. EryZ (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Someone (I didn't check) has put in some nice, gray-colored quote boxes. That's a good idea. Probably the entire article could use a rewrite at some point, after Gangnam fever has died down. . --C S (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The quotation boxes have been added to make things neater, articles usually dont deserve that much quotations, this articles deserves to keep its quotations because of its overwehlming popularity. Without quotations, its hard for the reader to fully understand the influence of Gangnam StyleA1candidate (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
pronunciation
Under "Miscellaneous Facts" it says "The proper English pronunciation of "Gangnam Style" is 'Kungnum Style.'" This is not the case. If someone wants to delve into the intricacies of Korean pronunciation, okay, but today's accepted transliteration is "Gangnam" because, I think most would agree, it's more accurate. Maybe just delete that "fact"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.149.98 (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I dont speak Korean, and I took this information from an ABC News reporter who asked a fellow Asian American reporter how to pronunce it, and she says Gangnam is pronounced with a "K" at the beginning? Maybe you can explain why Gangnam is pronunced with a "K" but still gets transliterated as "Gangnam"? (this is an honest question from someone who doesnt speak Korean) A1candidate (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's not exactly pronounced with a K. The Korean ㄱ is actually pronounced somewhere between an English G and K. It's not voiced like a G, but also not aspirated as we might pronounce a K. So the revised system uses a G for that letter and saves K for the aspirated ㅋ. You could tell an American to pronounce it like the "Kong" in "Hong Kong" but he would tend to inappropriately aspirate the sound. The bigger problem, I think, is with the vowels. It's a big stretch to use a U to represent ㅏ, which sounds like the vowel in "spa." If I were showing someone with no experience in Korean how to pronounce the word, I'd tell them to go with "gong nom" (where "nom" is the first syllable of "nominate").
- I understand what you're saying, so its neither pronounced like an American "G" or "K" . I have deleteted that reference.A1candidate (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
POV
After reading this article in full, I can't help thinking that it promotes the song; certain choices of words make me feel the article is slightly toned to making the song sound fantastic (as in the wording of the article, not the positive quotes). Any other thoughts? --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- for example? im was just merely quoting newspapers and famous people word by wordA1candidate (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've replied to your comment on my talk page. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- and I've also replied to thatA1candidate (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've replied to your comment on my talk page. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- for example? im was just merely quoting newspapers and famous people word by wordA1candidate (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- if nobody has anything to say about this Im going to remove this tag soonA1candidate (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Chart positions
Gangnam Style entered the Norwegian VG-lista today at #19 - can someone add this? Source: http://lista.vg.no/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.162.65.46 (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Proof --Funky Buraz (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
In the opening stanza, it's mentioned that the song has made #1 in Australia citing the iTunes Australia chart. This is not our official chart, ARIA singles chart is and as of 26/09/2012 it sits at #2. I'm expecting it to go to #1 here next week but the amount of sources that incorrectly cite the iTunes chart (which only counts for ~70% of the AU market) are numerous and inaccurate I think, please amend. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.149.115 (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It is incorrectly listed as #1 in the UK singles chart. It is currently #3. Will probably be #1 on Sunday as its currently #1 on the mid week update see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles & http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/update/singles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.218.155.251 (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Too many quote boxes
There seems to be too many quote boxes in this article. A more selective approach would benefit it: perhaps the three most important ones, included only under 'impact'. Shilton (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- the quote boxes are there to make things a little neater, a few quotes come from the celebrities, a few from broadcasting networks, and a few from newspapers. its a good idea to limit quotes for each subsection, I only select quotes from National daily newspapers with top circulation, national (or international) broadcasting networks, and celebrities whom everyone knows about. i think there may be a few quotes that can be deleted, let me know which ones you feel too strongly against.A1candidate (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- To me the question is what is the use of bringing, for example, the actual quote from Britney Spears, rather than simply stating her endorsement in some sort of list? Is it really important to read her tweets verbatim? Quote boxes are relevant when the actual words have actual significance; this cannot be said for any phrase ending in "haha". Regardless of my own uneasiness about quoting mere celebrities, I suggest, for the sake of aesthetics alone, leaving only one celebrity quote (whichever is your favourite), one quote from a newspaper, and perhaps also the one about the flash mob. Shilton (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- removed all quote boxes from celebrities, replaced with table, newspaper+broadcasting network quotes relocated and limited to 1 each section --A1candidate (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Lede needs expansion
The lede should be expanded to be a proper summary of the entire article (as ledes are supposed to do, per WP:LEDE). Considering the size of the article, a three paragraph lede with the paragraphs being decently large should be able to properly summarize all the important parts of the article. This seems to be one of the few things that's left to do to improve this article, beyond minor fixes here and there. Silverseren 21:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
iTunes US
The song is #1 on iTunes US, I think it should be mentioned in the article as this is an amazing achievement. Not only is GS the first Korean song to top the chart but it's the first foreign language song to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.49.96.157 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Here are some refs:
- http://rki.kbs.co.kr/english/news/news_Cu_detail.htm?No=93227&id=Cu - also mentions iTunes Worldwide chart and iTunes Worldwide Music Video chart
- http://www.npr.org/2012/09/15/161147846/k-pops-new-king
- http://www.prefixmag.com/news/psys-gangnam-style-now-1-on-us-itunes-singles-char/69155/
AngusWOOF (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Song as parody
Some sources (such as this one) note that this song/video doesn't actually celebrate the Gangnam lifestyle but actually is meant to parody and criticize it. I'm no expert on Korean culture, but should this point of view be introduced into the "background" section of this article? Oren0 (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
"Swag"
"an affluent and trendy area of Seoul, where people are trendy, hip and exude a certain "swag"" - this doesn't seem right as a factual statement, it may need to be rephrased. I don't think it is correct encyclopaedic style to describe people as "exuding a certain swag", seeing as it is more a matter of opinion. Besides, it says trendy twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.150.53 (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Article about the swag: http://opencitymag.com/beyond-the-horse-dance-viral-vid-gangnam-style-critiques-koreas-extreme-inequality/ AngusWOOF (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I understand, but it is still a generalisation. It would be better on Misplaced Pages to say that the people in the district "are stereotyped as hip and trendy", or something along those lines, rather than actually saying that it is a fact that they are "hip". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.150.53 (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Does anybody actually read this stuff?
"such debt has been encourages by the government to help drive" This is quote from the current article. Anyone think there's something amiss with the word encourages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.13.174 (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like someone already fixed this. Thanks for finding it. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
This is in response to the question in the title of this section. A consequence of the international attention to Gangnam Style is that there will be many people editing, who do not have native English fluency or are not familiar with Misplaced Pages editing conventions. However, as happens on Misplaced Pages, people will gradually improve it. A lot of the attention on this article has focused on adding material; as Gangnam fever dies down, the contents of the article will stabilize and people who are into polishing and making stylistic edits will take over. At this stage, I myself haven't seen a need to do this, since someone else typically comes along and randomly inserts a phrase into the middle of a sentence without bothering to read the surrounding text. I expect there are others that feel this way and are refraining from editing heavily. --C S (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Gangnam Style
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Gangnam Style's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "billboard":
- From Katy Perry: "Music's Top 40 Money Makers 2012". Billboard. Retrieved March 9, 2012.
- From Wide Awake (Katy Perry song): http://www.billboard.com/#/news/alan-jackson-scores-top-debut-on-billboard-1007306752.story?utm_source=most_recent
- From Wonder Girls: Silvio Pietroluongo (2009-10-22). "Jay Sean Recaptures Hot 100's Top Slot". Billboard. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
{{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - From Lady Gaga: "Music's Top 40 Money Makers 2012". Billboard. Retrieved March 9, 2012.
- From Taylor Swift: Prometheus Global Media. Teardrops on My Guitar – Taylor Swift .
- From Korea K-Pop Hot 100: Billboard (2010-08-26). "Billboard K-Pop Hot 100 Launches; Sistar Is No. 1 on New Korea Chart". Retrieved 2011-08-26.
- From Bubble Pop!: "Korea K-Pop Hot 100 Music Chart". Billboard. 2011-08-25. Retrieved 2011-08-25.
{{cite web}}: Text "Billboard.com" ignored (help)
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Rolling Stone
Rolling Stone magazine posted a nice breakdown of the video sequences with commentary by Psy; it might be good for the music video overview section: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/breaking-down-psys-gangnam-style-20120914 AngusWOOF (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"Non-exhaustive list"?...Really?
Considering the article calls out T-Pain I can understand including a link to the original tweet. But do we really need a list of arbitray list of Tweets from random celebrities (A-List or otherwise) who have mentioned. Heck, not even mentioning the video specifically...just using the words "Gangnam Style". -- TRTX 16:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- i only included those in the music and entertainment industry, there are more. and 90% of them also shared the video, not just mentioning it. -A1candidate (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Do we also need to include any media outlets that may have shown clips or mentioned this? I repeat the previous statement that the list is arbitray, and reads like somebody who searched "Gangnam Style" on Twitter and threw in the first handful of celebs they recognized. Do we need to start providing a list of celeb tweets for every meme that makes its way through the internet? -- TRTX 20:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- the point of celebrity tweets is to demonstrate the video's social influence, and allow the reader to understand why it got popular -A1candidate (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Do we also need to include any media outlets that may have shown clips or mentioned this? I repeat the previous statement that the list is arbitray, and reads like somebody who searched "Gangnam Style" on Twitter and threw in the first handful of celebs they recognized. Do we need to start providing a list of celeb tweets for every meme that makes its way through the internet? -- TRTX 20:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- i only included those in the music and entertainment industry, there are more. and 90% of them also shared the video, not just mentioning it. -A1candidate (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
← I have removed the list and inserted the proper references regarding T-Pain into the main paragraph text. Pleaes do not re-add without first discussing it further. A list of random celebrities mentioning the video does not automatically become encyclopedic, especially when two of those celebrities (T-Pain and Britney Spears) are already documented in the article proper (T-Pain as one of the people who first brought the video to public attention, and Spears for her appearance with the artist on the Ellen Show). Without some sort of boundary, where do we draw the line? As the list itself is just one person's take on who is "notable" enough to be included. Hence why it's an arbitrary list. If you wish to include further artists, then integrate their importance to the subject with third party results, instead of simply linking to the tweets mentioning the song. The fact that you admit that "there are more" is further evidence that the list was culled with no specific boundaries set. Inclusion (or lack there of) is meaningless when viewed by anybody other than the person who created it. -- TRTX 20:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Robbie Williams -> First to mention it
- T-Pain -> First to tweet about it
- Katy Perry -> Most number of retweets (12,000)
- Britney Spears -> Ellen Degeners Show
- LMFAO -> His music is considered by many to be similar to Psy's
- Tom Cruise -> First actor to mention it
- Scooter Braun -> Psy's manager -A1candidate (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- adding this back to the article if nobody has any objections -A1candidate (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- added back a short list since nobody has voiced any objections. Please write on the talk page before deleting. -A1candidate (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I included William Gibson's comment on the song since it seemed fairly relevant. I omitted the full quote since it's a lot longer than much of the tweeted entries, but here it is: "You know that “Gangnam Style” video from Korea? That’s kind of in the ballpark, you know? That’s something from a subculture we would have no way of knowing anything about, and suddenly it’s on YouTube and it’s got millions and millions of hits, and people all over the world are saying, “Wow, will you check this out?” That’s something. That’s something like that. But it doesn’t necessarily play out in the same way…. Our expectations and what it could become are different." (Source: WIRED)--DrWho42 (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
North Korea Parody
Shouldn't we have a link to the video? I've been looking all around for it anybody have any idea of the link!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.108 (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- According to CNN, the link is supposed to be : http://www.uriminzokkiri.com/itv/php_tmp/flvplayer.php?no=11566
- (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/asia/north-korea-gangnam-video/index.html)
- but some how i keep getting 504 Gateway Time-out whenever i click it
- am i the only one who cant view the video??? -A1candidate (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
It's completely down at the RTMP level. —Cupco 04:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
List of Gangnam Style parodies and reaction videos
It looks like this is a new article now. Do we really need a chart that ranks the popularity of the videos on the main page? That's too much to maintain. AngusWOOF (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Popularity" and ranking based on views is unneccesary and creates a need to constantly update the list. If there is a need for this list, then it's better as a chronilogical list of videos and why they're notable. As with the above discussion regarding random celebrities tweeting about the video, there needs to be a reason why the video is included (parody's recieving noteable third party coverage or inclusion in a noteable TV series, film, or other form of media would be valid reasons for inclusion) -- TRTX 20:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Problem is that 2-3 notable videos get mentioned by some big newspaper everyday, this section will fill up half the page before October. Suggestions? -A1candidate (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with AngusWOOF and TRTX. I really do not think we need to be maintaining lists of the song's trending popularity or its continued, "non-exhaustive" mentions and tweets by other celebrities and news sources. It is highly unnecessary for a Misplaced Pages article. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Foreign news sources are included to give the article views from a global perspective, selected tweets by celebrities are included due to its significance to the singer's career (see above) -A1candidate (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with AngusWOOF and TRTX. I really do not think we need to be maintaining lists of the song's trending popularity or its continued, "non-exhaustive" mentions and tweets by other celebrities and news sources. It is highly unnecessary for a Misplaced Pages article. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Problem is that 2-3 notable videos get mentioned by some big newspaper everyday, this section will fill up half the page before October. Suggestions? -A1candidate (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Pump up the Jam
Isn't this song a cover of "Pump up the Jam" by Technotronic? I mean the music is quite similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.147.183 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Social influence of Gangnam Style
Social influence of Gangnam Style was recently marked for proposed deletion. You can join the discussion here.--DrWho42 (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
StarCraft II
StarCraft II has no enormous fanbase in South Korea, and their players are hardly celebrities in Gangnam-go. At the very least it's not in the source, since the source is nothing but a youtube video of Stephano (French player) dancing after his victory in European qualifiers in Sweden. Hence I'm removing the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.119.185.29 (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with your first statement since it is an unofficial "national sport" (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-27/tech/south.korea.starcraft_1_starcraft-ii-gaming-market-internet-cafes?_s=PM:TECH) but you can apply significant secondary media coverage and see if the source qualifies (a Youtube fan video by itself wouldn't). I've only found rtsguru so far (http://www.rtsguru.com/game/1/article/4060/StarCraft-II-World-Championship-Series-A-Truly-Global-eSports-Event..html) AngusWOOF (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
"Outside the anglosphere"
Without commenting on the use of the word "anglosphere", surely "Gangnam Style" is notable for being popular outside Korea (rather than outside English-speaking countries). 122.59.249.222 (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a bit weird, especially when you consider that most of Asia is outside the Anglosphere, but the section under discussion seems focused on not using Asian sources. (Now I noticed the section has been renamed "Outside of North America", which seems even more bizarre). --C S (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- help add some Asian sources, references outside North America are included to give the article a global perspective -A1candidate (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- The subheading "Outside of North America" made no sense at all, and wasn't that necessary since the section isn't overlong. I removed the subheading entirely. --bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Cleanup
OK, this article is a mess. There are quotes everywhere, as are tables. The references aren't properly formatted. The tables need to be turned into prose. And some more encyclopediac info should be added. I'll be starting on these --Sp33dyphil ©ontributions 05:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Can someone take another shot at organizing the second paragraph? Why are flash mobs pushed to the top, when people haven't even started dancing to it for their weddings and social events? It should mention the celebrity tweets and parodies (as early as July), then flash mobs (August), media appearances (September), and finally sports (mid-late September). Also the flash mobs and sports stuff need to be offloaded or merged with the popular culture page, as the two lists are diverging. AngusWOOF (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Untitled
More needs to be said about Psy's use of satire in the video. In addition to the music and fun, there is a deeper narrative against the superficial nature of Gangnam show offs. If you've ever been to Garosuguil, you know what I'm talking about. Please do not delete this section, it is a key point to make.CrimsonSwift (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Protection request
The title says it all!--88.111.127.125 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- no vandalism.Greg Heffley 20:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- look again -A1candidate (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
ABC (good morning america) quote
As mentioned in the edit summary, the quote is an exaggeration. As editors, we don't make judgements on popularity, as that would be WP:SYN on the part of us editors.Curb Chain (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting to see what others think. I feel the quote should be restored, as does user User:A1candidate. The rationale is that we as editors are not pushing the actual viewpoint, we are simply stating that a major news organization has made such a comment, and that is indeed a cited fact. We are therein strictly leaving it up to the reader whether to make the determination that this demonstrates the power and impact of this phenomenon. Castncoot (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Being an exaggeration, by itself, does not automatically qualify for something to be excluded from Misplaced Pages, does it? I swear I've seen countless of claims and opinions, some bordering on the impossible, being quoted by countless Misplaced Pages editors. Just take a look at articles like Out-of-body experience, Energy medicine, 2012 phenomenon, etc. A quote by an established broadcasting coporation like ABC News seems more than harmless to me, in this respect.
Although Im new to Misplaced Pages, I have just read through the entire WP:SYN and it seems to me that original synthesis only applies when something new is added, which is not mentioned specifically by any source. And think about it, how is it possible for a quote to be original synthesis when it is, by defintion, a quote?
Even if this quote is slightly exagerrated, the fact is that other established newspapers like the Financial Times have said almost the same thing. I think removing the quote would lead to the reader not fully understanding what the mainstream media thinks about "Gangnam Style" -A1candidate (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Restoring the quote soon if nobody has any strong objections -A1candidate (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- We have a consensus for restoration here, will restore the quote. Castncoot (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
At which point in the video does it exactly say those words you quoted (in the quote box)? Secondly, you are using pushing WP:POV to give undue weight to this quote because
- it is a major newspaper, which is using WP:SYN by editors to determine it is a major newspaper
- you are pulling this quote out of a number of different sentences spoken in the video
- you are giving undue weight to this quote because you are deliberately putting it in its own box, out of context, to HIGHLIGHT this quote.Curb Chain (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)