Talk:Aegyo

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): Ajang7. Peer reviewers: Toxxicpoiison.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LucyLauck. Peer reviewers: Lsolares, Kleabwr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Houda's note

Alex, I have gone through your document and really liked the content. You provided good and instructive explanation supported by resources. I was thinking if you could add more information concerning the way people understand and perceive this phenomenon of "Aegyo". And if found any domestic and international audiences' criticisms of the Aegyo culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houdabe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

IPA incorrect

The IPA pronunciation for Aegyo at the start of the article is wrong, both for Korean and English. It should be like egg-yolk without the final 'k'. Wiktionary gives the Korean IPA as /ˈɛ(ː)ɡjo/. The IPA given for Gyotae in the next sentence of the article is also wrong. I tried to edit the article but was not able to input the IPA correctly without producing an error. 70.57.83.157 (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging this, and sorry it's taken more than a year for anyone to act on it. The IPA seemed to be giving a naive Anglophone pronunciation, which might be fine if this were a loanword in English, but we aren't otherwise treating it that way so IMO we should be providing the Korean pronunciation. I have switched to the IPA from the Korean Wiktionary, as EN wiktionary seems to have adopted a somewhat eccentric approach. -- Visviva (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Too much information about K-pop too little about actual Everday Uses

There seems to be a bias towards focusing on popular culture and K-pop in this article instead of looking at the implication of this behavior on the everyday life of Koreans. I understand that many users on an english wikipedia will not be familiar with Korean culture but we need to look more at the actual common everyday uses and implications of this behavior rather than at simply what it means for K-Pop a small subsection of korean culture that often meant for foreign audiences. - Reallygreatoaktree (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why Korea?

I found out just today that there is not an English word for this act/behavior/phenomenon, but I do not understand why the article is focused on Korea, as this type of behavior is present in multiple Asian cultures, including Chinese (wiktionary:撒嬌, sajiao, or wiktionary:賣萌, maimeng), Japanese (wiktionary:甘え, amae), and Korea (wiktionary:애교, aegyo), wiktionary:愛嬌 seems to be from Japanese.

This may be a popular thing in Kpop or modern Korean culture (I am not familiar with both subjects), but I am pretty sure this type of stuff is in Asian culture before Kpop was a thing. I believe this article in the current state is in violation of WP:GLOBAL and WP:PROPORTION, as it is written from a English speaking perspective (where there isn't even a word to accurately describe the subject in discussion, and hence thinking this is "a Kpop thing" due to the lack of Asian culture knowledge), and disproportionately describes the behavior in Kpop but not in the wider general Asian cultures.

As for the title, I propose using "amae", as "aegyo" seems to a word borrowed from Japanese, and this concept seems to have first been studied in the Japanese context, there is even a book on the topic. Sohryu Asuka Langley Not Shikinami (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That is a legitimate question, and I hope it sparks lively discussion, but it fails WP:RFCBEFORE, so I have removed the Rfc header. You can seek additional input by advertising this discussion at WikiProjects. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, this article is written almost exclusively about the Korean phenomenon. If you have something to contribute that would expand the article to cover more than just the phenomenon's occurrence in Korean culture then I'm sure it'd be more than welcome.

As for changing the title, you'd have to prove that "amae" (or whatever you want to change it to) is the prevailing WP:COMMONNAME for the phenomenon in English language reliable sources, which is highly unlikely. RachelTensions (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Reading the lead, for XXX is a normalized gendered performance that involves a cute display of affection often expressed through a cute voice, changes to speech, facial expressions, or gestures, XXX can be replaced by any of 撒嬌, 賣萌, 甘え, 애교, as I said, it's not exclusive to Korea.

For contributing content, I will be more to happy to do so if I have time and can find relevant sources, but before that I have to make sure the community agrees that this is not a Korea specific phenomenon.

For common name, if you look at sources describing this phenomenon seen in Kpop, of course you will see the Korean version (one reason is that, again, there is no such word in English), but in general, aegyo is quite similar to, if not the same as, amae. (To clarify, while I don't know which is more prevalent, I won't say either is "highly unlikely") Sohryu Asuka Langley Not Shikinami (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

IMO the short answer is that there should definitely be an Amae article (currently a bad redirect), and probably a Sajiao article as well. There seems to be ample source material for all three. But we shouldn't rush to combine distinct cultural concepts unless there is clear scholarly consensus for doing so. It's humorous that we have an article on Doi's book about amae, but no article on the actual subject matter (apparently due to a past misunderstanding that amae was a "neologism" coined by Doi). But at least as used in English-language scholarship like this, there doesn't seem to be an obvious equivalence between amae and aegyo (the former being more about forgiveness and the latter more about "performed winsomeness"), so IMO a merge is not indicated. It would be good to have better bridges between such articles and broader sociolinguistic categories (maybe in Baby talk, intimate relationship or the not-yet-existing intimate communication), but as long as there's sufficient sourcing there's no reason to attempt to squeeze different culturally-specific concepts into a single box. -- Visviva (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with this take. What matters is differentiation in sources, analyzing the concepts on our own is WP:OR. seefooddiet (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Mostly agree with you, having three articles is a good alternative. I still think that the concepts from each culture are essentially the same, with slight variations that could be put in its own section (maybe since we each have a short word/term for it in our language, unlike in English, this makes translation between the three much easier when compared to English and other western languages). I do agree that combining the concepts should be treated with caution and might require reliable sources linking them together. （Adding a small note: I don't see a strong connection between "amae" and "forgiveness".） Sohryu Asuka Langley Not Shikinami (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Sohryu Asuka Langley Not Shikinami, having three articles is fine, if supported by the sources, but I am opposed to your view of handling it in one article, because it violates Wikipedia's core principle of No original research. Because what two editors have tried to point out to you has apparently so far not sunk in, I am going to be a bit blunt, so I apologize in advance for that, but this needs to be said. Everything we write must be based on what we find in reliable sources, and more to the point, on what is found in the majority of reliable sources. Anything you find out or theorize on your own is strictly forbidden as original research, and as your proposals for an article are all based on your own theories, your solution cannot be considered. Here are some examples, taken from your words:

• ...this type of stuff is in Asian culture before Kpop was a thing.

  With this type you are manifestly alluding to concepts from two other cultures, and making an assertion about the connection among the three, with no appeal to reliable sources.

• This type of behavior is present in multiple Asian cultures, including Chinese (... sajiao), Japanese (... amae), and Korea (... aegyo)., or:
• as I said, it's not exclusive to Korea, or:
• I still think that the concepts from each culture are essentially the same, with slight variations that could be put in its own section.

Who says any of these things: a book, a journal article, a reliable website? No; you say these things. Regardless of what you think, or how obvious it is to you that these are the same thing from your knowledge and experience of multiple cultures, and even if you are the tenured chair of the department of East Asian culture at a top university, you cannot use your own knowledge, experience, or research to determine the right course of action; it must come from the sources. Later you said:

• I do agree that combining the concepts should be treated with caution and might require reliable sources linking them together.

You started out along the right track, but you went off the rails at the end. It is not that they "might" require reliable sources linking them, but rather that they absolutely must have such sources, and they must represent the general (i.e., majority) viewpoint.

To underline the essential point: our role as Wikipedia editors is very different than the role of a grad student, researcher, or scientist: they must come up with new and original ideas to publish, or risk losing their position, and the more original and persuasive, the more it is likely to lead to success and influence. Our role is that of summarizers: we find the best WP:SECONDARY sources available, and summarize the major and leading minor viewpoints in them. That is it, full stop. We invent nothing, we theorize nothing, we do not contribute new ideas or novel syntheses of existing, reliably sourced ideas.

Your path to a single article incorporating the Korean, Chinese, and Japanese terms/concepts you listed runs through reliable, secondary sources about them. If you can demonstrate the sources, then you are welcome to follow that path, and if you cannot, then it is a dead duck. Again, sorry to be blunt, but that is the long and the short of it, and it's easier to integrate this core idea of Wikipedia now while you are still a new editor, rather than later when the habits become ingrained. Mathglot (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of all the WPs you linked, I have some experience on zhwiki and these policies are not that different between the sites. I agree that my views are somewhat OR, but I don not see a very clear, or large enough, distinction between "Aegyo" and "the general concept that I am referring to that cant be easily translated into English". I tried looking these words up in bilingual dictionaries, but unfortunately I don't have easy access to physical ones so I can only rely on online ones, if anyone can find better dictionaries with these words, feel free to post them.

ja-zh: 甘えよ-撒嬌

ko-zh: 애교-撒娇(撒嬌 vs 撒娇 is just traditional Chinese vs simplified Chinese, they are the same word)

For ko-ja, I can't read both languages, but from two layer translations, they seem to be describing the same thing.

I also tried Cambridge zh-en, but as a native Chinese speaker, I can say that's not quite right, Cambridge doesn't have results for ja-en and ko-en.

These are not "proves" or "evidence" that all CJK (or more) content should be put under the same article, but (I think) the Korean version is not distinctive enough from others (Kawaii is an example for a local culture that (I think) is appropriate as an independent article), but again, three articles is an option. Sohryu Asuka Langley Not Shikinami (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There are more sources than just dictionaries. You can look up sociology papers. seefooddiet (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)