Talk:Kim Seon-ho/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

remove "Kim admitted that" Rasta joan (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The claim is well sourced. If you have a policy based argument, please present it. Melmann 07:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021 (2)

Change "On October 20, 2021, reports stated that Kim admitted that he had forced his ex-girlfriend into getting an abortion and he issued an apology through his agents.[34][35] As a result of the controversy and his eventual admission" to "On October 20, 2021, Kim released a statement in which he apologized to his ex girlfriend for having hurt her due to his carelessness and inconsiderate actions. As a result of the controversy, companies such..."

https://www.soompi.com/article/1494436wpp/kim-seon-ho-apologizes-for-controversy-involving-ex-girlfriend Deneb819 (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021 (3)

24.60.189.248 (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Please rewrite the controversary section. There were allegations posted which she now says were misunderstandings. His statement acknowledged they had a relationship during which he made mistakes and was inconsiderate. That is not an admission of any of the allegations. She has taken everything down. 16:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)24.60.189.248 (talk)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2021

Hi,

THIS IS INACCURATE:

On October 20, 2021, reports stated that Kim admitted that he had forced his ex-girlfriend into getting an abortion and he issued an apology through his agents.

This is due to the inaccurate translation of the article from which the information takes reference from.

PLEASE CHANGE TO:

On October 20, 2021, Kim Seon Ho issued an apology for the controversy and inconvenience.

Please reference the right source article below, thank you.

https://www.soompi.com/article/1494436wpp/kim-seon-ho-apologizes-for-controversy-involving-ex-girlfriend

It is worth noting that the ‘girlfriend’ had removed her anonymous post after Kim Seon Ho apologized and she said it was a misunderstanding. There was never evidence provided to substantiate her claims and allegations.

I appreciate if you can make the necessary updates ASAP as the current content is misleading and damaging. Lovefififi (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources to support the claims. soompi is not a reliable source. It is also worth noting that the article says that "it was reported that Kim admitted", not solely that he admitted. Alex (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the word "admitted" is used by news outlets to get more clicks. As far as I know he only apologized for his "carelessness''; he never admitted that he forced his ex-gf into getting an abortion. Eevee01(talk) 04:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
lots of socks requesting the same edits… Equine-man (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

Under the personal life section: The controversy, as stated, is still a matter under discussion. Kim Seon-ho has not admitted to anything. He has instead apologized as follows: " I hurt her due to my carelessness and inconsiderate actions." SOURCE: https://www.soompi.com/article/1494436wpp/kim-seon-ho-apologizes-for-controversy-involving-ex-girlfriend

His girlfriend in turn apologized as well for "misunderstandings" SOURCE: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/web-series/news/korean/kim-seon-hos-ex-girlfriend-reacts-to-his-apology-there-was-a-time-when-we-truly-loved-each-other-i-dont-feel-good-watching-him-collapse/articleshow/87165248.cms

This amendment to Kim Seon-ho's profile is biased and incorrect and gives a wrong picture. Please make this a more balanced entry as it currently reads as though it has been written by his former partner and presents only one side of the story!

Please remove or amend appropriately. 110.235.232.225 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021 (2)

Change-

On October 20, 2021, reports stated that Kim admitted that he had forced his ex-girlfriend into getting an abortion and he issued an apology through his agents.[34][35] As a result of the controversy and his eventual admission, companies such as Domino's Pizza and Canon pulled their advertisements featuring his image.[33][34] Kim was also removed as a permanent cast member of the KBS variety show 2 Days & 1 Night,[36] and was subsequently dropped from film projects Dog Days and Lee Sang-geun's romantic comedy 2 O'clock Date.[37][38]


to -

In a statement released through his agency Salt Entertainment, Kim Seon Ho said he was motivated to apologise to ex-girlfriend, co-stars, fans and others affected following media attention about the allegations.

“This is Kim Seon Ho. First, I sincerely apologize for my belated statement. When I first saw the news articles with my name on them a few days ago, I experienced a fear like I had never felt before, which is why I am only now presenting myself in writing. I dated this person with good feelings. But during the relationship, I hurt this person due to my incompetence and lack of consideration. I had hoped to meet with this person again in order to deliver my sincere apology, but I am currently unable to do so and am waiting for that time when I am presented with the opportunity. In the meantime, I hope to relay my apology in earnest through this letter. I would also like to apologize to all those who trusted me and cheered me on until the end, for disappointing you. I was only able to stand tall as actor Kim Seon Ho because of the people who cheered me on, but I had forgotten this fact. I also take this time to apologize to the many people who worked with me on various productions for the harm which I have caused, due to my mistakes. Once again, I want to sincerely apologize to all who may have been hurt by this incident. I know that these ramblings are insufficient to reach many people earnestly, but I offer my honest thoughts in any way that I can. I am truly sorry."

His ex-girlfriend in turn apologised as well for "misunderstandings"

Following the allegations, Korean public broadcaster KBS announced that Kim would be removed from season 4 of popular variety show 2 Days & 1 Night.

Several brands removed posts featuring Kim Seon Ho. 80.194.234.168 (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021

I see that this page was last edited 14 hours ago. I would like to request that you add recent confirmed news regarding Kim Seonho’s public life. Like the dispatch article about this scandal and how Kim Seonho did not force an abortion. We should avoid misunderstandings. I hope you will consider my request and hope to see updates soon. 2A02:AA13:E47F:4C80:A0FE:EE8:575E:BABD (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please make the request in text specifically which lines you want to change and what you want to change them to. And provide a reliable source (not Soompi) that accurately states this. Evaders99 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021

Delete the whole Controversy part. Akworthy (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. SSSB (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it can be removed because he is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Eevee01(talk) 10:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"Personal Life" section

I'm inclined to agree with editors who wish to see the "Personal Life" section of this article deleted. The scandal described appears to have been engendered by a single internet forum post that then got picked up by the press and turned into a huge scandal. The fact that the original accuser backed down on her claims and that any repercussions (lost sponsorships and deals) were reversed indicates that the matter is not significant in Kim's life and should not be perpetuated in his Wikipedia biography. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It was reported by multiple outlets and did affect his career, whether they were reversed or not. Surely that seems notable enough to warrant inclusion? Alex (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Akworthy, please reach a WP:CONSENSUS before removing the content. Eevee01(talk) 07:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021

Add "Gallup Korea's Television Actor of the Year 2021" to "Listicles" under "Awards and Nominations"

Additional information: Kim Seon Ho was just voted number 1 television actor of the year in Gallup Korea's year-end survey. Gallup Korea's wikipedia page has also been updated - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_Korea%27s_Actor_of_the_Year

News Article References: https://m.joynews24.com/v/1432358 https://n.news.naver.com/entertain/article/117/0003562433 https://n.news.naver.com/entertain/article/003/0010888660 https://n.news.naver.com/entertain/article/477/0000333417 https://entertain.v.daum.net/v/20211214144640945 https://entertain.v.daum.net/v/20211214150953838 https://entertain.v.daum.net/v/20211214145627290 Lexipediagrey (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Not considered as listicles. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request on 16th December 2021

"In 2021, he was selected as Gallup Korea's Television Actor of the Year."-- add this sentence to the introductory short description in a similar way it is mentioned in other achievers'( eg ParkBoGum) bio, it is a huge achievement, a milestone for any Korean actor's work , but only mentioning it at the last paragraph of career is only burying it amongst sea of words. 157.40.241.8 (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC on section title

Closure requested <permalink>. See little agreement in this discussion on which name is appropriate for the section now titled "Personal life". That section name is not popular below, and the highest level of agreement was for either "Forced abortion allegations" or "Public image". While those two titles were agreed upon the most, "Actor K controversy", "Controversy" or moving the info into the "Career" section were not far behind. Under these circumstances either of the titles in boldface type above is acceptable. If editors find it necessary, discussion may be continued on this issue. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currently, a section is titled "Personal Life". The contents of that section are limited, as of this revision, exclusively refers to one public controversy in which Kim was involved as well as the public reaction to it. Editors have proposed multiple titles in the article through edits, though none appear to have been stable since content of this sort was added in this diff. Which of the following is the best title for the section:

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: RfC on section title

  • Option E, A, or D in that order. I see no benefit to misleadingly titling a section where the topic does not involve anything more than a single controversy. A section title of "personal life" or "private life" is a rather euphemistic title for the contents thereof. Per MOS:SECTIONHEAD, headings should follow all the guidance for article titles. And, the article titles style menu says that [a] title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles. The topic that is most natural and precise title is certainly not "personal life" nor "private life", but instead something that affirmatively describes the substance of the section—the allegations that "Actor K" had forced his then-girlfriend to get an abortion and then the reveal that Actor K was a title used to refer to Kim Seon-ho. The most blunt way to describe this is "forced abortion allegations", though "Actor K controversy" could also work as it's sufficiently precise to describe the same situation. "Controversy" is less precise, but it's much more natural than the other two alternatives. All of the options are sufficiently concise to be section headers. As a result, I believe Option E is the best title proposed, followed by Option A, followed by Option D. I believe that Option B and Option C are inferior to the prior three, and I have no particular preference between the two bad options. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • A or E - The section doesn't include material usually found in the Personal Life section of celebrities, but deals entirely with a specific scandal. "Controversy" is too generic a term, so A and E are the best and most descriptive titles. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Public image: I think the section should be titled "Public image" because this controversy/scandal has affected his "public image" the most. Also this title is more neutral.Eevee01(talk) 14:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - The section as is, appears WP:UNDUE. I support a neutral heading and possible expansion with details to his actual "personal life", not just scandals and controversies. Meatsgains(talk) 02:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • E or D, in that order or preference. As it is, this isn't about his personal life at all but about this controversy. Call it what it is. If enough sourced information about his personal life can be included, I would suggest that it go into a different section (labeled "Personal Life") separate from this one. I think I disagree with Meatsgains above that this is undue attention, as much as one can be sure given that I don't know anything about the article's subject beyond what I read here. That said, it looks like this was a significant moment in his career with lasting ramifications, and the few small paragraphs there are pretty concise, so it looks like an appropriate amount of coverage to me. Fieari (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • E or D, but would also support Public image. As others have stated above this section isn't about his personal life but it did affect his career. Alex (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Put it in the Career section. If the second paragraph of the Personal life section is accurately written (I'm not familiar with this actor nor the controversy) in that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion and Following the new reports, most companies began resuming advertisements featuring Kim and announced their decision to proceed their project with Kim as the lead actor... then I would say this whole paragraph belongs in the Career section under "2020–present: Breakthrough and mainstream success", since all this happened in a span of a month or less and didn't really seem to impact his career long-time per WP:RECENTISM. (Summoned by bot) Some1 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I support changing it to Public image, per Eevee01, as being a more neutral title compared to all other options. Isabelle 🔔 20:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • A, C, or Public image. Putting it in the Career section would also be fine. We shouldn't use D for the reasons described at WP:CSECTION. I also agree with those above who said that having a whole section devoted to this controversy seems like recentism or undue weight. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Undue to list in its own section—coming to this with no knowledge (I just saw the request for closure while listing my own) I agree with User:Meatsgains that at present it seems like the section is making a larger deal out of the situation than the press coverage and impact on his career, even at this short a juncture, seems to indicate. Like User:Some1 I think the best option is to slim it down so it's less blow-by-blow "this was a current event once" Wikipedia style and just stick it in the career section where the most germane details (that he dropped from some projects) is relevant. At the very least it most definitely shouldn't be B, C, or D, as those are either euphemistic or plain misleading (controversy sections have long been discouraged, for WP:COATRACK reasons among others.) Given that this RfC has been open for months I might suggest others who weighed in consider their thoughts again now that there's another 5+ months of time to consider the context. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 December 2022

Before locking the page, please be responsible and at least read the contents first. These two sentences are problematic and misleading and they knew it yet refuse to change it. :

1) "Screen-captures of chat conversations from acquaintances revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims." <---- This sentence is misleading and it's NOT EVEN WRITTEN on the articles (the SCMP and MB which use the Dispatch report).

2) "refuting various claims previously made by the ex-girlfriend." <---- There is no solid refutation or revelation there except from an unreliable report which cited anonymous sources.


Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article TheWandering (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done} as this page is no longer protected and may be edited directly. — xaosflux Talk 13:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

On Using Dispatch and Misleading Sentences

Failed verification sentence has been removed with all sentences within Public image section verified to had been mentioned by cited sources. Wording for counts such as "few" has been either been removed due to failed verification or has been changed to the exact precise figure. There are no consensus among various editors who had commented here to remove and/or replace the SCMP and Manilla Bulletin. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 14:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


UPDATE:

1. Some editors here actually realize DISPATCH is unreliable, "grey area", and it has track records of spreading celeb rumors in K-Pop industry. Yet they insist to make it as a source?

2. They also realize that Dispatch's report is not corroborated. Again, they insist to make it as a source.

3. Some editors say this report is "quoted" by other media, but there is a lapse of journalistic understanding here. To be reliable, the report should be corroborated, not just quoted. Both KSH and his ex-girlfriend do not corroborate the anonymous source from Dispatch. KSH's agency does not corroborate the report. Other major reliable media also do not actually corroborate the report either. The Dispatch report is simply uncorroborated. Why would it be used as a reference?

4. Another misleading argument that I notice here is saying the first report (the abortion) was also coming from anon source, so it should be deleted as well. That is such misleading argument because the ex-girlfriend already admitted it and Kim Seon Ho also already apologized. The problem here is the Dispatch report that defends Kim Seon Ho, but that report is unreliable because they use anon resources.

5. What I can conclude here is these "editor-fans" insist to use DISPATCH as a source because it benefits the article's subject (KSH). But IF Dispatch were to release negative reports about other artists, would the admins in other pages use it? The answer would be NO, because they know the issues with DISPATCH and its rumors. So you see the potential double-standard here. Avoiding to use anonymous sources should be common sense.

6. Another argument for Dispatch is actually using argumentum ad ignorantiam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Please be careful when using Dispatch as the source. Find reliable better sources such as Korean Herald. The two articles from South China Morning Post and MB (on public image part) are actually using Dispatch. Please use direct sources whether from Kim's agency or the lady's own source. Dispatch's articles are claimed to be "allegedly" based on "Kim Seon Ho's friends". Wikipedia must not use such source.

Furthermore, some sentences were totally misleading or attacking the ex-girlfriend based on gossip he said she said report. I was particularly troubled by these two:

"that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims."

- This is an outright misinformation. The sources (which quoted Dispatch) did not even say that. Not to mention neither Kim Seon Ho nor his girlfriend has verified this Dispatch report.

"Following the new reports, most companies began resuming advertisements featuring Kim"

- No, the source (MB) only said two. Not most.

I am just baffled why such misleading editing errors could be published for so long. We should avoid Edit War, but in case someone insistently uses source like Dispatch, then I should press this matter to the senior contributors.

TheWandering (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Calla, you made a serious mistake. You locked the page when the page was literally using a gossip anonymous source. It's not just some editors were using that unreliable source to defend their favorite celeb, but two of the sentences are promoting misinformation against a member of public.
1) "Screen-captures of chat conversations from acquaintances revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims." <---- This sentence is misleading and it's NOT EVEN WRITTEN on the articles (the SCMP and MB which use the Dispatch report).
2) "refuting various claims previously made by the ex-girlfriend." <---- There is no solid refutation or revelation there except from an unreliable report which cited anonymous sources.
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article
@Callanecc TheWandering (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Bad Faith Editing, Editor-Fans, Gossip Source, The Sun

I really need to say it here. Do not use gossip source like Dispatch as the source. @The rosetta stone

Use more reliable journalistic contents such as from Korea Herald. You put various websites, including in Korean language, but a single click shows that all of your citations are based on Dispatch. And please, see all these sentences. I am seriously considering to lock this page.

Examples of the bad faith editing:

1. All of the media cited are using a single source Dispatch which is not a Reliable Source for Wikipedia.

2. Misleading use of the term "Evidence"

It's not evidence. It's *testimony* based on he said she said. Deleted.

3. "Screen-captures of chat conversations from acquaintances revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims."

--> Misleading sentence. Testimonies based on DISPATCH which is not a Reliable Source, and coming from Kim Seon Ho's friends. Not product of journalistic investigation. No comment from either Kim Seon Ho or his ex-girlfriend Deleted.

4. "Testimonies from acquaintances of both Kim and his ex-girlfriend continued to surface, refuting various claims previously made by the ex-girlfriend"

---> Another testimonies based on DISPATCH. No actual comments from either Kim Seon Ho or his ex-girlfriend. Deleted.

5. "Following the new reports, most companies began resuming advertisements featuring Kim."

---> Only TWO companies resumed it. Another misleading sentence. Deleted. Changed it to some based on Korean Herald reported quoted by Straits Times and NME.

Could you please check this page? I really suspect Kim Seon Ho's fans are meddling with this page. @David Fuchs TheWandering (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @The Wandering

For starters, just want to put out there that I am not yet familiar with which sources are considered by Wikipedia to be reliable. Will inform myself real soon.

But nevertheless, let me address some of the points you brought up.

1. "I really suspect Kim Seon Ho's fans are meddling with this page"

---> There is NO BAD FAITH EDITING. This section of the actor's page has not been edited for 14 months already and you'll see this as a fact if you check the History of edits. I merely restored the previous version.

Since the controversy over the private life of the actor broke out in October 2021, multiple editors of Wikipedia has already revised this section to reflect the updates. It has been subject of various revisions and discussions as you can see in the other 'talk' pages here.

The sudden editing of this section 14 months later when editors have already come to an agreement regarding the contents way back is what I would call meddling.

2. "Only TWO companies resumed it. Another misleading sentence. Deleted. Changed it to some based on Korean Herald reported quoted by Straits Times and NME."

---> All of Kim's then ongoing brands resumed their advertisements except for one which is Domino's Pizza. This, however, happened in a period of several days to weeks. The cited article only mentioned "TWO" or "SOME" considering that those were written at the time when only two or some have resumed. Will provide other articles as sources.

2. "Misleading sentence. Testimonies based on DISPATCH which is not a Reliable Source, and coming from Kim Seon Ho's friends. Not product of journalistic investigation. No comment from either Kim Seon Ho or his ex-girlfriend Deleted."

---> "coming from Kim Seon Ho's friends" is inaccurate if we are to base on Dispatch. It was clearly said that the information from the article released by Dispatch came from their own investigation, as well as testimonies from friends and acquaintances of BOTH Kim and the ex-gf.

3. "All of the media cited are using a single source Dispatch which is not a Reliable Source for Wikipedia."

---> the same article by Dispatch has been cited by nearly every single media in Korea and globally.

Re: Dispatch. The news outlet may have been notorious for their unethical (legally grey) way of gathering their information, but as far as i know none of their previous exposés has been refuted nor debunked. They presented myriads of evidence, something that the ex failed to do to support a post coming from an anonymous site. If we are talking about reliability of sources here, then shouldn't we start from that –by deleting the accusation first?

Just wanted to address these. Thanks. The rosetta stone (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this point by The rosetta stone (talk). The sudden editing of this section 14 months later when editors have already come to an agreement regarding the contents way back is what I would call meddling.
This section contents discussion reached agreement by multiple editors by November 13, 2021. Rechecked the page history again, and there are no major edits happened since (until December 26, 2022). So suspicion of Kim Seon Ho's fans are meddling with this page" is a falsehood. NO BAD FAITH EDITING in my opinion.
Talk:Kim Seon-ho/Archive 1#Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021
Thanks. Preferwiki (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Long messages with the most basic problem: "For starters, just want to put out there that I am not yet familiar with which sources are considered by Wikipedia to be reliable. Will inform myself real soon."
That's the issue. Even sources like Soompi is not a Reliable Source here. We do not know whether the information from Dispatch is real or not. Including:
1. "as well as testimonies from friends and acquaintances of BOTH Kim and the ex-gf." (Who can confirmed those were their friends?)
2. "the same article by Dispatch has been cited by nearly every single media in Korea and globally." (Being widely cited by showbiz media does not automatically mean it's a reliable source)
3. "but as far as i know none of their previous exposés has been refuted nor debunked." (You can't be serious. Dispatch has spread numerous rumors, and when the celebs refuse to debunk them, that does not mean Dispatch is correct. In this case, if it's neither refuted nor confirmed, why would Wikipedia use it as a source?)
4 "They presented myriads of evidence" (Evidence means something solid, not some screenshots from unclear sources.)
5 "If we are talking about reliability of sources here, then shouldn't we start from that –by deleting the accusation first?" (This is a very poor argument since the ex already admitted it was her writing).
6. And you literally said this: Dispatch. The news outlet may have been notorious for their unethical (legally grey) way of gathering their information, so you are aware Dispatch is problematic. Many people who understand Korean showbiz also know that. Why would it be used as Wikipedia's reference?. TheWandering (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Also, I am not asking you. @Preferwiki The fact that you've been around for so long yet keep letting a gossip media like DISPATCH to be used as a source is actually a telling-sign.
cc: @David Fuchs TheWandering (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I don’t edit section of Korean entertaintment Wikipedia contents that’s already reached consensus by more senior editors who already adhere to Wikipedia:KO or WikiProject Korea. I refer to archived talk page and avoid editing section that were semi locked before.
In my knowledge the members of WikiProject Korea never reach consensus that Dispatch is unreliable source just like Soompi and the likes. I see Naver News listed as part of reliable source. Not all media can be a Naver News provider. A media outlet gets penalty points by Naver by engaging in unethical activities. Dispatch being one of the Naver News providers should help being considered as reliable source. Naver Dispatch article link should be used instead of a link from Dispatch website. Not all coverage of Dispatch are posted by Naver News. The one used as citation here, last time I check were also published through Naver News. A reliable couple media outlets deemed reliable by WikiProject Korea also refer to Dispatch coverage. I recommend changing Dispatch Citation to the one from Naver News.
You want senior editor to look into this and @Evaders99 is a senior editor who are part of Wikipedia:KO, the one who revert your edit.
Many other Pages in Wikipedia still use Dispatch as Citation. So I recommend if you have complaint about the reliability of Dispatch you should address this issue to WikiProject Korea talk page first and discuss the matter there and try to reach consensus first, before editing the page drastically and throwing suspicion & accusation. Wiki editor should be neutral and adhere to WikiProject Korea consensus. Preferwiki (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Please refer to this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources
The list below provides the names of Korean sites that can and cannot be used as a source. If you want to request a source as reliable, submit your question for consensus. The same method if you want to question the reliability of a source.
I’ll revert to senior editor @Evader99 revert until the community reach consensus on the reliability of Dispatch. Preferwiki (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
--> "In my knowledge the members of WikiProject Korea never reach consensus that Dispatch is unreliable source just like Soompi and the likes."
You are quite mistaken because there is a precedence.
Please refer to The Sun case in which it is considered unreliable source. Please read it here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_254#RfC:_The_Sun
One of the arguments is: "It is hard to find the border between facts and fiction in this kind of tabloids." which can be applied to Dispatch's case here. Who can confirm the veracity of those conversations from "friends" if both subjects (KSH and his ex) keep quiet?
"I recommend changing Dispatch Citation to the one from Naver News." That is just circumventing the reliability source because the original source itself is unreliable.
It is basically gossip and not for Wikipedia. And back to my argument, you see how even popular sites like Soompi, AllKpop, and Koreaboo are not even considered reliable. If you understand K-pop Industry, you should also should be aware of the rumors that Dispatch spread. Please read the link I gave you above. TheWandering (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 Comment: Agreed with what Preferwiki had stated so far. There are clear evidences that multiple reputable South Korea news media had quote from Dispatch in their news articles about the same topic (regardless of type) be it recently or previously hence I don't see any reliability issues. In addition, Dispatch doesn't just reports exclusive on gossip which you're seemingly suggested that they only does that, when visiting their website's news page shows otherwise, and that they like other reputable South Korea news media reports on entertainment-related news as well.[1]. So far, all I could see is you simply throwing unfounded self-proclaimed relability issues claims about Dispatch without actually even providing any reliable sources from other reputable news media to support such claims whereas for The Sun there are evidence supported by reliable sources from other reputable news media on its editorial issues, in which, I also don't see the need to throw in the RfC on The Sun here as I don't see any similarities. While, there may be some failed verification sentence added by someone here which isn't catched until now, I don't see how sources that are using Dispatch (regardless direct or quoting) is to be blamed for Dispatch unreliability when it's the incompetence editor who added such failed verification sentence in the first place is to be blame instead hence I don't see what is with this unnecessary big commotion. Also a friendly reminder that you have reached WP:3RR here hence a fourth revert would be WP:EDITWAR (in which also noting that you were previously blocked for such), I don't see any consensus here yet hence before obtain any, you shouldn't be reverting any further without valid reasons listed under WP:3RRNO, relying on point 8 because you disagree can and may also be considered as WP:EDITWAR in which point 8 on WP:3RRNO also caution on quoting it on such grounds.
Tldr, as I had mentioned before via the edit summary on Talk:BTS, if you have concern pertaining the reliability of Dispatch, then you should be raising such concerns at either WT:KO or WT:RS with reliable sources from other news media provided as evidence to support your claims. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Are you aware that you @PaperDoll is basically giving a OK to media who has ANNUAL rumor/dating revelation event as the source here?
Also, the contents basically have no basis. And the people who were involved (KSH and his ex) are not giving comments. Why using Wikipedia as a gossip page? And yes, I would revert it just to make sure senior editors would come to see how gossip report with anonymous sources are being used as a reference. TheWandering (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@TheWandering You had been adviced by Preferwiki above to not throw false accusation around, however you're seemingly ignoring it altogether as with "Are you aware that you @PaperDoll is basically using media who had ANNUAL rumor revelation event as the source here?" and "You are using this as a gossip page" by indicating that I added those failed verification sentence and/or the sources here when in fact just by looking at wikiblame, wasn't even me. Throwing false accusation against another editor is a serious and blockable offense btw.
"And yes, I will revert it just to make sure senior editors will come to see how gossip report with anonymous sources are being used as a reference" you're welcome to do so, since you're so eager to get your name onto either WP:AIV and WP:ANI. I'm not going to stop you since you're so eager to get yourself blocked indefinitely, be my guest. And also btw, with 49K+ edits and here since 2013, I'm also considered as senior editor per WP:SERVICE. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
My point still stands about the usage of Dispatch.
And if you want to talk about consensus, 200,000 literally filled petition to South Korean Government against Dispatch. Why? Because the rumors they spread. https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1004849142&plink=ORI&cooper=NAVER
That is my problem. And if you read the previous version, there was clearly some issues by using anonymous report to defend celebrities. Wikipedia is not the place. TheWandering (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@TheWandering I don't care if your point still stands about the usage of Dispatch, this is your opinion NOT every editors opinion. Fyi, I'm not saying your opinion doesn't matters but you should raise this at the correct venue which is either WT:KO or WT:RS with reliable sources provided to support your claims to gain the community consensus instead of continously spamming the same reply over and over here which doesn't helps. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Rejecting the use of a gossip report with ANONYMOUS sources is not a matter of opinion. It's a COMMON SENSE.
I hope you know by allowing this sentence "revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims." is actually promoting accusation based on gossip source. TheWandering (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@TheWandering For the final time, stop your false accusations against other editors. I didn't even edit the article (in particular the controversy section) hence how on earth am I adding gossip??? If you have problems understanding/interpreting what other editors are replying without taking their reply out of context then you shouldn't be here as WP:Competence is required. This is my final reply to you as I don't see this discussion between you and me going anywhere constructive, I already gave my views above, and also told you to raise your concerns at the correct venue. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Other person just edited it with questionable excuse. But all this time you're just trying to sit on the fence while my point still stands. If you know that using gossip is wrong, why would you not delete the part?
I also have reported this page. And please stop complaining about someone being suspicious when a page is literally using anonymous report to defend a celeb. TheWandering (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I read the link very carefully. It was well documented in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_254#RfC:_The_Sun and well archived. A consensus were reach after discussion from multiple users. There is also a summary. That’s best practice. Based on the precedent you should also address this issue on designated talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources, then reach consensus. We should get more feedback from Wikipedia:KO community members. Just like the like of Soompi, list of unreliable source must be documented in Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources and all the discussion must be recorded in the talk page. This is important because there are dualism. Naver News – Korean news site that covers topics including entertainment, sports, technology, and business is considered reputable.
Source you have problem with, were also published by Naver.
Link 1
Link 2
Just targeting ONE page is not a best practices. As mention in this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources
“The list below provides the names of Korean sites that can and cannot be used as a source. If you want to request a source as reliable, submit your question for consensus. The same method if you want to question the reliability of a source.”
This talk page of certain page is not a place to question the reliability of a source. Just like when consensus made about allkpop.
Wikipedia a crowd-editing communitity sites so the truth must not decide by one editor but through community of members consensus.
Thanks. Preferwiki (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I am using that as a precedence and the case can be well-applied here.
I hope you are really thinking clearly. It is wrong to use an anonymous reports, especially to discredit one of the parties here (the ex-girlfriend).
If you really think Kim Seon Ho did not wrong, then just wait until his own agency said it. Why using gossip report with anonymous sources?
And I hope you remember Just a few years ago, 200,000 people filled petition to ban Dispatch for spreading rumors. https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1004849142&plink=ORI&cooper=NAVER TheWandering (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ajivika
First, I'm not sure what you mean by "If dispatch is not a reliable source so is an anonymous post. Therefore if the anonymous post matter is mentioned here so should be the events that followed up."
Second, The rule is already clear: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article"'
Third, please read this talk. You are literally using anonymous sources like Dispatch against a living person. You are potentially spreading gossip about his ex-girlfriend. Read the actual rule and I ask you to undo your edit. TheWandering (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia's three core content policies:
  • Neutral point of view (NPOV)
  • Verifiability (V)
  • No original research (NOR)
And the rule is: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article"' is actually also applied to SUBJECT of the Biographies of living persons in Wikipedia page. This is not Wikipedia page of the Ex. Problem is her accusation news also cited anonymous sources (gossip internet forum) that are IMO equally poorly sources and unreliable, same status w/ Dispatch. It’ll be different if the news case were base of police report or lawsuit. For e.g Naver excluded its blog and forum from reliable source. Hence, all contents in the section IMO must be scrapped just to be fair. However I am the type of editor who respect consensus made in November 13, 2021 by more senior editors in the archive talk page. So I only revert back to that version. I follow Wikipedia rules & consensus. Please do listen to Senior Editor suggestion above.
Thanks Preferwiki (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
This another bad faith argument and false equivalent:
"Problem is her accusation news also cited anonymous sources (gossip internet forum) that are IMO equally poorly sources"
That is a not good equivalent because she already admitted it was her story and Kim Seon Ho already admitted it happened and apologized. When did Kim Seon Ho ever confirm the veracity of the Dispatch story and those "screen-captures" messages? TheWandering (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The whole section must not be deleted. The new version I put is already neutral in tone because it shows at least there is a report that contradict her (from DISPATCH), but that report is unconfirmed by either KSH or his ex. But do not use those anonymous reports as basis from the truth.
And Kim Seon Ho already apologized which shows he acknowledged what he did. Using Dispatch to defend a celeb is really a losing strategy. TheWandering (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, saying her girlfriend was suggesting abortion is an outright lie because the anonymous in Dispatch could not even confirm that. Only KSH and his ex knew it, and they do not verify the Dispatch story. Therefore, this addition is important if you still want to include Dispatch -> ''however no confirmation about this from either Kim Seon-ho or his ex-girlfriend. TheWandering (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The previous version was misleading for not explaining the nature of Dispatch anonymous and uncorroborated reporting. In other words, the version I write is actually a compromise because it comprises both sides:
1. The Dispatch's claims
2. The explanation that both Kim Seon Ho and his ex do not confirm the story. TheWandering (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay I made the exception and suggest my neutral edit based on my POV because as per this discussion. If Dispatch are mention it’s only fair to attached them as citation. Judgement that they are reliable/not will be talk about in proper talk page. There are news report about agency refusal to make comment and the follow-up lawsuit made by ex-gf. So It should be added. Preferwiki (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
If we are to compromise, at least four things must be edited out:
1. Screen-captures of chat conversations from acquaintances revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims. <------ This is outright slander if not straight up misinformation against someone (the ex-girlfriend).
2. The name Dispatch must be mentioned because they are the main source.
3. It must also be added that "however no confirmation about this from either Kim Seon-ho or his ex-girlfriend."
4. Do not use the word "evidence" if it's coming from unreliable source. TheWandering (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think all the valid points regarding dispatch has been discussed already yet you believe that dispatch is unreliable source. I don't find any point arguing further . The report provided by dispatch was also reported by almost all the reputed media houses across the world. If you still have problem raise the issue at proper platform as provided earlier by other members. Ajivika (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You are literally spreading rumors about someone based on anonymous reports. TheWandering (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@TheWandering Ajivika (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

If so shouldn't we start from removing the whole accusation which was raised through an anonymous site and specially when the exposure herself admit that there is a misunderstanding? If dispatch is unreliable source, all other celebrities wiki pages (who got backed up by dispatch and who got accused by dispatch) should be edited. @TheWandering Jarappa (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

As many Kim Seon Ho's fans just keep repeating the same misleading argument again and again:
"If so shouldn't we start from removing the whole accusation which was raised through an anonymous site"
The ex-girlfriend ALREADY ADMITTED the controversy took place and Kim Seon Ho ALREADY ADMITTED the controversy happened and apologized.
Meanwhile, these people are using anonymous sources as a way to criticize the ex-girlfriend. Since when Wikipedia is using anonymous sources to defend celebs? If you think the DISPATCH is true, then wait until Kim Seon Ho or his ex or the agency said something. But they have not corroborated that article. TheWandering (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I know you have concerns with his article, but we'll need to reach a consensus before anything can be improved. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 05:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
You seem like a K-Pop fans as well. You should know the problems with Dispatch. Remember what they did to G-Dragon and various rumors they spread. As a BTS fans, you know Dispatch also spread dating rumors about Jimin and V. So why don't we put those rumors on their pages too?
Let's be real. These people (fans-editors) insist to use DISPATCH as the source because that report benefits Kim Seon Ho.
But think of the precedence they are making. That means, if next time DISPATCH published story about Jimin dating this person or that person, or any rumors of other people, then there is a precedence to use that story in other pages.
Of course, realistically, admins in other pages would not want to use DISPATCH based on the same reason that I have. Therefore the use of DISPATCH in this page is problematic. TheWandering (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I just want to hear your intellectual honesty here: If next time Dispatch drops rumors about BTS members dating Blackpink members, would you be OK to list it on their pages? Because you're creating precedent here. TheWandering (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Or perhaps I can go to Loona's page and enter what Dispatch has written? TheWandering (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I was pinged. Note: I did not do any reversions. But I fully agree with the points that Preferwiki, Ajivika, and Paper9oll have posted. The events, even if based on rumors, were notable enough to be reported by other reliable sources. It's not up to other editors to post original research on what is factual or not. Other sources that dispute Dispatch's events need to be used. Evaders99 (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
1) Please read my comment carefully. Maybe from the beginning:
1) "Screen-captures of chat conversations from acquaintances revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims." <---- This sentence is misleading and it's NOT EVEN WRITTEN on the articles (the SCMP and MB which use the Dispatch report).
2) "refuting various claims previously made by the ex-girlfriend." <---- There is no solid refutation or revelation there except from an unreliable report which cited anonymous sources.
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article
2. It's not up to other editors to post original research on what is factual or not.
What? TheWandering (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
This part:
the events were notable enough to be reported by other reliable sources.
We're not discussing about the event (abortion) which took place. But how some editors are relying on anonymous source as a reference which benefits one of the parties. TheWandering (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Anonymous sources are allowed - this is how many news events are reported to the public. Wikipedia is not here to make judgement calls on whether it was accurately reported. Find your own source that disputes these claims. Evaders99 (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
So, based on your logic, it is OK to use a report which was anonymous and unconfirmed, and if we raised questions, we got to provide the solid evidences? And if the celebs and mainstream media refused to engage with the rumors, that would mean the anon report would be true/reliable for Wikipedia?
Please this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
And please actually read my comment the number (1) and (2). TheWandering (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

His ex girlfriend admitted that there was a MISUNDERSTANDING. Actor and the agency did not acknowledge the whole content. Dispatch merely elaborate the MISUNDERSTANDING. Wikipedia is not a place to push your personal opinions. Dispatch articles cited by the presses all over the world. People have right to know all informations. It is not about defending but about the "right to know informations"

@TheWandering Jarappa (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone should keep the count of openly misleading argument from Kim Seon Ho's editor-fans here.
"His ex girlfriend admitted that there was a MISUNDERSTANDING."
The ex-girlfriend did not elaborate the misunderstanding, and she even said Kim Seon Ho actually apologized to her (and he apologized publicly again). She and Kim Seon Ho DID NOT CONFIRM the DISPATCH's report.
Please, for once, give a honest argument to use gossip source like Dispatch. TheWandering (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

"He apologized publicly again"

If you are referring to july 2022 theatre play pc, read it correctly he apologized to reporters for causing bad news. He did not acknowledged the "WHOLE" accusation.

"She and Kim Seon Ho did not confirm the dispatch's report"

They were neither denied.

"Dispatch is a unreliable source"

Its your personal opinion. There are lot of celebrities got canceled because dispatch raised the issues first and there are lot of celebrities saved by dispatch publishing testimonies and evidences. Nothing debunked as of now.

As senior said this should be solve through a census. Wikipedia is based on crowdsourcing. So it should reflect the opinion of majority. Not only "ONE PERSONAL OPINION". Thank you! Jarappa (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we have had enough fans' arguments here:
1) She and Kim Seon Ho did not confirm the dispatch's report" They were neither denied.
Per my previous argument: IF the couple nor their agency have neither supported nor denied the DISPATCH report, then WHY WOULD Wikipedia should be using that anonymous source as reference?
2) Majority... Not only "ONE PERSONAL OPINION".
Per my another previous argument: Rejecting to use ANONYMOUS SOURCE to defend a celebrity is not opinion. It's COMMON SENSE. If you want to use Dispatch to defend your idol, do that on Twitter. TheWandering (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
This is such a terrible argument:
"There are lot of celebrities got canceled because dispatch raised the issues first and there are lot of celebrities saved by dispatch publishing testimonies and evidences. Nothing debunked as of now."
Like, this person completely skipped the whole part when Dispatch spread unproven rumors. And she thinks when celebs refuse to engage with gossip media that would mean "nothing debunked". Mess. TheWandering (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

We are asked to make a decision by consensus which means generally accepted opinion and it seems accept one everyone here do agree to include dispatch report & also agree to keep the "public image" part as it is. So i don't see the point in dragging this topic anymore. Ajivika (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Except* one 

Ajivika (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Seon-ho/Archive_1&oldid=1221526657"