Talk:Min Hee-jin

Dispute with Hybe section

With the dispute still ongoing it seems to me like particular care of this section is needed. In the current state the section has a mix of a timeline feeling while at the same time being each day more and more incomplete. I am not for listing every step, at the contrary I think that the two main parts involved should be represented better in a more distinct fashion. Min Hee-Jin position is unclear, there's a repetition regarding the difficulty to get Hybe control, and the accusation of ILLIT copying take way more space then the rest. On Hybe side there's an even more misterious tone since reading the paragraph doesn't really give any insight on their relationship and actions beside the audit. If nobody takes a shot at it I'll try to work on it when I'll have time in the next few days. Please instead of randomly reverting it if you find something unsourced or badly written tag it appropriately and come discuss it here first! Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The reverts weren't "random", all material about living persons that are unsourced or poorly sourced are to be removed immediately without discussion per WP:BLPSOURCE. Keep that in mind the next time you're adding information to this page. Thanks 「HypeBoy」^TALK 02:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Your reverts were random. You reverted sourced informations about 1) the origin of her movie influences 2) the lyrics of the track cookie 3) the school girl outfits.

Please avoid doing so in the future in other sections as with the dispute with hybe. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

1. You wrote "minors in age of consent" which were not stated in any of the sources. 2. You wrote that Min Hee-jin "deleted" her instagram pictures which were not stated in any of the sources. 3. The info about f(x) and NewJeans having a lolita concept were already there, which made your edit unnecessary. My point stands, for your future edits, either put a reliable source for ALL your edits or don't edit at all, because like I said, unsourced edits in biographies of living persons are to be removed without discussion. 「HypeBoy」^TALK 19:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

1) "minors in age of consent" is literally the age we are talking about regarding the movies she shared. Is "pedophilia" better just because the source, who is just copy pasting twitter talks, wrote it? You do realize it makes it only more libellous?

2) If you accept the first source that comment about those pictures of her appartment then you have to accept that Min Hee-Jin deleted them. They are not on her current instagram.

3) Lolita concept doesn't mean anything. It is a vague slander category that should be avoided. I added a precise reference to what is the topic discussed and that gave the whole section a more neutral and factual tone.

You should indeed discuss all of this into a talk page. We are even in the wrong section now.

Again, the Hybe Dispute section needs a rewrite as well since in the current state it is unclear for both parties involved. Discuss it instead of reverting it. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I went on with the idea to not follow a strict timeline for the first paragraph and rewrote it. I still think that there should be two other paragraphs that more clearly develop Hybe position and Min Hee-Jin position and plan to write them as soon as I will have the time.

I am still not sure that a full timeline of events couldn't have been better, but since nobody discussed it on the talk page I went on with my idea. There should be an introduction for these other two sections that explains how this tensions has been boiling up for months, if not years.

What hybe section should include: embezzlement accusation, fair treatement to all the groups, shaman stuff, discussing with other investors (one of them tipped hybe) etc

What Min HeeJin section should include: unfair treatement with le sserafim debut, hybe exec copying general concept with illit plus details, unfair value of the stock options, independence of ADOR communications regarding new jeans etc Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I also wanted to add that the last phrase of the section, the one regarding Min Hee-Jin chats against new jeans members and fans, should be completelly scrapped. I don't understand how a snippet of a private conversation with random insults, real or not, relates to any of the matters discussed. It's not that I find it defamatory but it is completelly not relevant, not worth of an encyclopedia, and ultimatelly takes space that is badly needed to discuss the topics that are not currently developed. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

User@Pauline_Muley has fully reverted the edits because they are "contentious" "unnecessarily verbose" and made by a "single purpouse account".

- I don't have the time to focus on other articles right now, but I did edit other pages as well.

- How were the edits contentious? On the current form there are private Min chats being linked. That is not contentious?

- How were they verbose since they helped establish more preciselly the general context? The current formulation is vague. For exemple it doesn't explain why the court favored Min on the injunction.

They also reverted an edit on Min work on Hybe building that was fully sourced with an official youtube video by hybe claiming that Youtube it is not a reliable source. An official video by Hybe is not reliable?

I am proceeding to restore small edits, make the phrasing more precise and add elements to the timeline. I hope that there will not be any more full reversions without coming to discuss it first. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The last phrase which highlighted support of the New Jeans member Danielle to Min Hee-Jin was deleted by user Btspurplegalaxy. I understand that it could be considered "Original research" since no major publication discussed it. It is worth noting that highlighting artists position is not seen lightlty is South Korea after the numerous suicides in the industry.

I will not proceede to restore it but I urge people that modify the page to discuss it in the talk page as well. Isn't the connection between NewJeans and Min Hee-Jin central to the whole conflict? Multiple journalists have asked about it in both press conferences. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Context about another reversion, the info about the other executives being dismissed by hybe being relevant/irrelevant.

One of them is targeted by the same breach of trust procedure that Hybe started on the 25th of April and both are crucial to the whole story. They wrote the notes presented by Hybe as evidence, the kakao talk messages, and were also mentioned multiple times by Min lawyers and by Min herself. Their dismissal also grants Hybe the majority in future ADOR internal voting that could, hypothetically, dismiss Min. Which was also a concern raised on Min second press conference.

Don't revert edits you don't understand. If they are not clear try to improve them. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)