Talk:Kim Seon-ho

Missing sentence

@Paper9oll Just want to point out about this sentence: "with reports stating that the abortion decision was mutual" The article MB (from Dispatch) actually suggested she actually changed her mind, and there's another disagreement. ---> "She suddenly changed her mind [about the abortion] so their conversation became longer." That part of disagreement should not be left out. Thank you. TheWandering (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheWandering I don't see why that should be mentioned when the event is prior to the sentence of quote "with reports stating that the abortion decision was mutual" and by adding more, you're simply coat tracking the section. And also, make up your mind, you ranted for a whole 1 week and now out of the blue, you said you want to include another sentence because so and so. What's next, after gaining consensus to add quote "She suddenly changed her mind [about the abortion] so their conversation became longer", you will out of the blue say another sentence is missing and keep on ploughing that so and so sentence is missing and kept the conversation going for maybe up to a year??? I oppose to adding this sentence "She suddenly changed her mind [about the abortion] so their conversation became longer" because it happened before the key events of "with reports stating that the abortion decision was mutual" hence now you're required to gain consensus to add this sentence. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 09:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"you will out of the blue say another sentence is missing"

I did not say a sentence was missing. I said it's being left out. Why did you leave out that sentence from the source that you are using? TheWandering (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Well if you want us to write every detail regarding the source we are using we do get the freedom to write that she suggested abortion while Kim seonho was one who suggested marriage, that she wrote the nate pann post to ruin Kim seonho career because he decided not to go back to her, that she was cheating on him. There are hundreds of things that i also feel is left out but we aren't whining over it. Wiki is a page to provide general information to public and i think the one that is published is enough.

Though i still don't understand the use of word 5-"two companies resumed" when except Domino's all the companies resqumed the advertisement. Ajivika (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajivika: About “two companies”, that’s because the citation only mention to two companies. Solution is to propose better citation to support statement that more than two companies resume their advertisement. Source in Korean language is allowed, it doesn’t have to be in English. Just make sure use Trans-title= in the citation formatting. Preferwiki (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheWandering Well both "missing" and "left out" is essentially the same meaning. The only changes I did to Public image section is removing failed verification sentence (the one you ranted for whole 1 week), fixing the word "few" to the exact count figure as per cited source, removing Domino Pizza because neither cited sources mentioned it even though "American pizza restaurant chain" may be it but that's WP:OR, and some WP:COPYEDIT only. I didn't knew that sentence exists (not bored enough to go visit the source every single seconds or minutes or hours or days) until you mentioned it above hence asking me why I leave out that sentence is absurd, and as mentioned above in my earlier reply, I opposed the addition of that sentence hence you're required to gain consensus to do so. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 10:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nice dodging. Now back to my question:

-> Why did you leave out that sentence from the source that you are using?

Because that sentence that you left out was not some random detail, it could dispel your sentence that claimed the abortion was mutual. If you wanted to use Dispatch or that article (which I am against) then at least provide the full sentences and context. (Update: I am not sure which sentence that you referred "not exist". But now you know that the sentence I pointed out does exist.) TheWandering (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheWandering No one is dodging your question, not sure how on earth you came to that conclusion. And also not sure if you have issues with your English understanding or not as this is not the first time you had taken my reply out of context and/or you simply didn't read it correctly and/or couldn't be bothered to read correctly, if you have problem with your English understanding or have problems understanding other editors replies then you shouldn't be here on English Wikipedia as per WP:Competence is required. I had already reply to your question above so go read again, if still don't understand, then I can't help you since this is English Wikipedia and I already replied in English. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 11:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern about my English. Now I will point this out again:

"Because that sentence that you left out was not some random detail, it could dispel your sentence that claimed the abortion was mutual. If you wanted to use Dispatch or that article (which I am against) then at least provide the full sentences and context." TheWandering (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheWandering Pretty sure I already answered your question earlier, and as with before, you couldn't be bothered reading correctly. For your sake, let me repeat myself for the 3rd time and also for the final time, I opposed to adding this sentence "She suddenly changed her mind [about the abortion] so their conversation became longer" because it happened before the key events of "with reports stating that the abortion decision was mutual" (this sentence existed back in November 2021 and was only restored yesterday word by word, anything beyond such as missing sentence isn't my concerns as it doesn't exists in the November 2021 revision and prior) hence now you're required to gain consensus to add the proposed sentence mentioned above. Which part of you're required to gain consensus is unclear or are you exhibiting WP:IDHT. Regardless, I already replied to you and whether you like it or not isn't my problem, go and gain consensus first. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 12:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I vote to stick with consensus made in November 2021 restored version after reading the archived talk pages leading to that version. Never ending objection in the talk page not adhere to WP:GF principle. Shared @Paper9oll: concern about potential WP:IDHT. Preferwiki (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Which one is this November 2021 version? Not the one that obviously gave misleading sentence, I hope? TheWandering (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I just checked the November 2021. But my problem with that version is still the same, editor should not leave out an important sentence. "She suddenly changed her mind [about the abortion] so their conversation became longer" TheWandering (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"I opposed to adding this sentence "She suddenly changed her mind [about the abortion] so their conversation became longer" because it happened before the key events of "with reports stating that the abortion decision was mutual"

Here is the article that you put as a reference, it's actually based on that Dispatch report, including a paragraph that is being left out:

Based on the Dispatch report, Kim Seon-ho and his former girlfriend mutually agreed to abort their baby. She told him that she was pregnant on July 24, 2020 and she had an abortion three days after on July 27.

In the Dispatch report, Kim Seon-ho’s best friend B, a theater actor, told a different story. B claimed that Kim Seon-ho told her that the baby was a blessing and comforted her.

“At first, he congratulated her by saying it is a ‘good thing.’ But in reality, I think he was scared. He thought a lot about it. Unfortunately, they agreed to let [their baby] go [aborted],” Kim Seon-ho’s friend said.

On the day of abortion on July 27, according to Dispatch, B waited in the parking lot and Kim Seon-ho and her girlfriend came down later. She suddenly changed her mind [about the abortion] so their conversation became longer.

In her original post, the woman said she wanted to have the baby.

"Both of them came down with swollen eyes. This decision would not have been easy. While I went to the hospital with her, he went to buy ingredients for seaweed soup ingredients. He is a person who cannot cook,” said B. TheWandering (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I am also opposed to the addition of the proposed sentence.

I agree with what @Paper9oll and @Ajivika have said so far. Aren't you disputing the reliability of the dispatch report earlier but now you want to cherry pick incomplete information from it that would support the conclusion you alone formed in your head? If we are to add anything, might as well copy paste the whole two reports of dispatch and let the readers of Wikipedia judge for themselves the whole thing. But of course not everyone is as obsessed and bored as you are to still be yapping about this for a whole week. The rosetta stone (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

As I already wrote above, here I will copy it for you.

"that sentence that you left out was not some random detail, it could dispel your sentence that claimed the abortion was mutual. If you wanted to use Dispatch or that article (which I am against) then at least provide the full sentences and context." TheWandering (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Do read that slowly. TheWandering (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@theWandering "Both of them came down with swollen eyes. This decision would not have been easy." The decision they made is what happened AFTER what you have been asking to add in wiki since yesterday which means they eventually mutually agreed for abortion and that's what is mentioned in wiki.

Once again if you wish to add every detail that supports your conclusion then we also get the right to add other information which we think is important? Like I said before her suggesting abortion immediately after telling seonho about pregnancy while seonho repeatedly asking her to think about it and bringing the topic of marriage. Ajivika (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@ The wandering Ajivika (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@ preferwiki I found few articles one of which is by wion which mentions 3 companies- miima, canon korea & 11street which resumed advertisement after dispatch report but i don't exactly know how to edit and add the link so can you please if possible do it? Ajivika (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajivika: think for now It’s wiser not to change anything from the section because @Paper9oll: used WP:BLAME script to restore to November 2021 consensus. Multiple reverts incidents had caused this.

Please refer to this:

Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability: The de facto primary criterion for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is truth, not verifiability, i.e. whether reliable sources state it to be true; not whether individual editors think they can verify it themselves.

So in this case: mutual and two according to citation (Manila Bulletin) according to consensus made last year are verified. Preferwiki (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Just want to note that we shouldn't imply Dispatch is a reliable source. In fact, one senior editor recently also used the example of TMZ to discourage its use:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources#Is_Dispatch_can_be_counted_as_reliable_source? TheWandering (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajivika @Preferwiki Fyi, adding sources to correct the count figures is allowed, just don't add something extra (like preceding events which isn't important and is simply coat tracking) that already has conclusion. And from what I can see Ajivika wanted to have more accurate count figure from the number of companies resuming their advertisements which is permissible given that the current sources only stated 2 unnamed companies, of which, don't include the brands names in the article if the sources doesn't explicitly stated it, don't WP:OR to assume it, otherwise you are welcoming yourself continuous ranting from someone. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 02:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajivika:

Then I’ll nominate the citation from Woman Chosun, part of The Chosun Ilbo.

Following new reports, seven companies began resuming advertisements featuring Kim.

It mention seven brands (11.co.kr, Miima, Shinhan My Car, La Roche-Posay, Wide Angle, & Nau). I hesitate to edit because the source stated that Canon brand never privated their content. Not sure on better choice, seven or most? Seeking guidance from senior editor @Paper9oll:. Thanks. Preferwiki (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: seeking guidance on is it possible to add more citations to corroborate existing citations from Manila Bulletin and SCMP without changing the sentence. I find two articles from Korean sources that adhere to fairness and accuracy in reporting. One from Chosun Ilbo. and other from MoneyToday Those two are samples of updated press coverage by Korean medias covering this issues were based and refer to sources as follow:

1. 1st Article: Dispatch Exclusive Report published on October 26, 2021
2. 2nd Article: Dispatch Exclusive Report published on November 2, 2021
3. SBS radio's "Current Affairs Task Force" (SBS라디오 ‘시사특공대’) episode 1101, that was broadcast on November 1, 2021, in afternoon with SBS reporter Kang Kyung-yoon that produced this statement: “There are people who say, "Isn't Kim Seon-ho taking lead in the media play?" but to my knowledge he's not taking any action at all. In fact he's so shocked by this whole situation that he's largely considering just giving up everything. I'm talking about his entertainment career. What's fascinating is that it's A's friends that are stepping up, not Kim Seon-ho's side. 5 to 6 of her friends tipped the media and handed over their texts exchanged with A and Kim Seon-ho's texts A sent to them, claiming 'Kim Seon-ho's current situation is too unfortunate.' I find it fascinating because I've never encountered such a situation.” The broadcast is documented in SBS Network Website and corroborate the existance of witness from two Dispatch articles. Non disclosure of the sources names (use term acquintances) is inline with reporter privilege of Source protection.
4. SALT Entertaintment statement (subject’s agency)
5. Ex GF through her lawyer

Thanks in advance. Preferwiki (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajivika: @Paper9oll: Regarding his ads, not all brands archived their posts of him (i.e. everwhite, globe and canon).

The brands that did remove or archive resumed their ads except the pizza brand. So the use of the word "most", while not exactly accurate as it should be "all but one", would be ideal to convey that fact simply and not complicate this matter. Chosun article cited by @Preferwiki: above also used the word "most".

So I nominate use of the word "most". Thanks. The rosetta stone (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Preferwiki All of the three cited sources are acceptable, however what changes are you proposing? Kindly reply in "change X to Y" format. @The rosetta stone Kindly provide reliable sources to support "not all brands [removed] their posts of him (i.e. everwhite, globe and canon)"? I don't see mentions of everwhite and globe in the sources provided by Preferwiki. However, noting that the following sentence "included popular international brands such as an American pizza restaurant chain and a Japanese camera brand" was already included in the article, in which may be referring to Dominos and Canon, respectively, however Dominos and Canon wasn't mentioned even though by original research it is them, as the existing sources doesn't mentioned both brands of their names. However, this portion of "such as an American pizza restaurant chain and a Japanese camera brand" can be updated to mention Dominos and Canon by supporting it with the Chosun article. And also, kindly clarify what you meant by "posts of him", are you referring to social media's posts or the actual advertisements (television, online ads, billboard, bus stop billboard, etc), as I'm actually talking about the latter. To avoid someone hunting down the word "most" like the word "few" again for 1 whole week or maybe even longer, I would say using the exact precise count which is 7 (as reported in the Chosun article provided by Preferwiki) is the better option, routine calculations is not considered as original research per WP:CALC. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: my proposal:

1. Changing two to seven in the sentence, result of the change: Following new reports, seven companies began resuming advertisements featuring Kim.
2. Request to add three citations I attached.

Thank you for ur kind reply. Preferwiki (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Preferwiki  Done for the 1st pointer. As for the 2nd pointer, I only included the first source as the second source is reporting on the same news which is resumption of advertisement hence only one source should be included otherwise we're encouraging WP:REFCLUTTER which we shouldn't be doing. As for the third source, I'm ensure where exactly to insert it into and which sentence is it supposed to be supporting? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: This is what I have in mind.

On October 26, 2021, a Korean media outlet published new evidence challenging the accusations of Kim's ex-girlfriend, citing sources from close acquaintances of both Kim and his ex-girlfriend,[citation from MoneyTalk] with reports stating that the abortion decision was mutual, and that the pair broke up after questionable circumstances surrounding the ex-girlfriend.[citation from Women Chosun]

Thank you for your help. Preferwiki (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Preferwiki Will add Money Today as a third source behind SCMP and Manilla Bulletin, is that fine with you? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@@Paper9oll:

I agree. So We have Korean source to back up overseas press.

The one from Women Chosun can be used to backup The Straits Time.

The production team of the film Sad Tropics also announced their decision to proceed with their project and list Kim as the lead actor.[citation from The Strait Times][citation from Woman Chosun]

Thank you for your help. Preferwiki (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Preferwiki  Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Baeksang Arts Award for Most Popular Actor

Hello @Paper9oll! For this category, my argument is that the Baeksang Arts Award used to have clear nominees back during the 53rd Baeksang Arts Awards. Now, the award body decided to carry out by voting on TikTok, and all the nominees are considered for this award. If we consider all nominees for the 60th Baeksang Arts Awards to be candidates for Most Popular Actor, shouldn't it be updated on every actor's wiki page? Wheezythewave (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wheezythewave I asked "According to [what discussion/consensus]?" and what I see above is literally a "in my opinion". I don't observe such "in my opinion" applied anywhere (regardless of occupation i.e. actor/actress and/or singer/entertainer/groups) including FL A&N with similar criteria i.e. all nominees were nominated for the Popular Awards category and/or other similar category with the status quo showing it is listed regardless. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I would like to raise concern regarding this topic and start a discussion in order to reach a consensus. Namely because I see the inconsistencies, as @Preferwiki only updated the category for two of the nominees Kim Seon-ho and Lee Do-hyun, and not the other nominees. Wheezythewave (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wheezythewave If you're basing it on what Preferwiki is doing by updating selective articles then this is pretty much a normal thing, I does that often and have also often observed such editing behaviour from other editors. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Paper9oll Do you think it make more sense to only update Most Popular Actor category if it is won? I understand that all nominees automatically qualify for the category, but due to selective updating, most articles don't include the category if you look at past Baeksang Arts Awards nominees. Wheezythewave (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wheezythewave If the individual/group is nominated then I don't see any reason to omit it. Certain articles having it and certain articles not having it due to selective updating is always an issue and will continue to be an issue, we are all volunteers here and there is only always so much each volunteer is able to perform their capacity and interest. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Listicles

Hello Preferwiki. Don't you think that all the listicles (other than Korea Power Celebrity 40) are not even worth adding. In my opinion they are not notable enough to be added and they donot add much to the article. -ink&fables «talk» 03:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)