Talk:Jaha Koo

Conflict of interest disclosure

I am Jaha Koo, the subject of this draft. I am therefore declaring a conflict of interest and will submit the draft through Articles for Creation for independent review. Bawiisan (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lynch44 (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Jaha Koo

• ... that Jaha Koo (pictured), whose works focus on immigration and imperialism, is the first Asian to win the International Ibsen Award?

• Source: 1. His theatre is shaped by translocation: the journey between Seoul and Ghent — where he now lives and works; by histories of colonialism and the unexpected personal impact of imperialism; by a searching look at possibilities and hopes. International Ibsen Award 2. Koo, 42, was named the recipient of the International Ibsen Award 2026 on March 20, becoming the first artist of Asian descent — and the youngest person ever — to receive the prize. The Korea Herald

• ALT1: ... that one of Jaha Koo's plays features a talking rice cooker?

• Source: The endeavour, though, was ultimately successful, and the talking rice cookers form part of Cuckoo, one of a trilogy of plays by Koo showing in Adelaide at OzAsia festival – a sprawling program of contemporary art which takes in everything from music to theatre. The Guardian

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Notre-Dame de Paris: Version anglaise
  • Comment: The article was made by Jaha Koo himself but its tone seems to be neutral. The nomination is a day late but I hope it is okay. I will complete QPQ in 24 hours.

Created by Bawiisan (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 14 past nominations.

KimYubin (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2026 (UTC).

• to alt1, which seems more snappy and attention-getting. Article is sufficiently new and sourced, and the hook checks out. The subject seems to be sufficiently aware of his own conflict of interest, so it should not be an issue especially not with a third party doing the DYK nomination. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@KimYubin and TenPoundHammer: I feel as if ALT1 wouldn't pass WP:DYKFICTION, so another hook may need to be proposed; please correct me if I'm wrong on this. All relevant parties have been pinged. Beta Beta Beta - talk 05:09, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@Beta Beta Beta: The talking rice cookers are props used in the play that literally talk (in the Guardian article, Koo says that he went through a lot of trouble to reprogram rice cookers to talk), so I don't think the hook is against DYKFICTION.

I also suggest a quirkier ALT2: ... that South Korean threatre-maker Jaha Koo (pictured) made rice cookers explode when trying to make them talk? KimYubin (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I am satisfied with ALT2. Many thanks! Beta Beta Beta - talk 05:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the exploding rice cookers in the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I have just added it in the "Cuckoo" section of the article. KimYubin (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Reinstating tick. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Theatre-maker

This is a rare term for those outside the industry, and could benefit from explanation. I found no Wikipedia page for it, but I did find a Wiktionary entry for theatremaker. I see four options: 1) Link to the uncreated Wikipedia page 2) Link to the Wiktionary entry 3) Include a brief definition in the article as an aside (parenthetical, or with commas or em-dashes) 4) Do nothing

Option 1 would be the best choice if the topic deserves an article. Option 4 would be the best choice if I am wrong about the term being uncommon. Options 2 and 3 are the only ones thet provide clarification to the reader. Pauldebarros (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)