On Using Dispatch and Misleading Sentences[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bad Faith Editing, Editor-Fans, Gossip Source, The Sun[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
--> "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)[reply]
 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Or perhaps I can go to Loona's page and enter what Dispatch has written? TheWandering (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Except* one 

Ajivika (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Protected edit request on 30 December 2022[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Missing sentence[edit]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Do read that slowly. TheWandering (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@ The wandering Ajivika (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources#Is_Dispatch_can_be_counted_as_reliable_source? TheWandering (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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.[1]
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)[reply]
@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.[2] and other from MoneyToday[3] 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@@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)[reply]
@Preferwiki  Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jang, Ka-hyun (2021-11-03). "광고 재개 논란...김선호 등장하자 '11번가 탈퇴 인증' 불매운동 러시" [The controversy over the resumption of advertisements...When Kim Seon-ho appeared, "Certified withdrawal from 11th Street" boycott rush]. Women Chosun Ilbo (in Korean). Retrieved 2023-01-03.
  2. ^ Kim, So-jeong (2021-11-01). ""前여친 폭로에 대응안한 김선호, 충격에 다 포기하려 했다"" ["Kim Seon-ho, who didn't respond to his ex-girlfriend's revelation, tried to give up because of shock."]. Chosun Ilbo (in Korean). Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  3. ^ 머니투데이 (2021-11-01). "시사특공대 "김선호, 연예계 생활 포기할 생각 중…큰 충격받아"" ["Current affairs Task Force "Kim Seon-ho is thinking of giving up his career in the entertainment industry...I'm so shocked"]. MoneyToday (in Korean). Retrieved 2022-12-30.
Categories