Jump to content

Talk:Seo Yea-ji/Archive 1

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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) 15:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seo Ye-ji → Seo Yea-ji – This is my first Requested moves, so please correct me if I am wrong. I will write the reasons point wise.

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

Add in award for Baeksang Arts Award for Most popular actress.

Source: https://www.kdramastars.com/articles/120640/20210510/baeksang-arts-awards-2021-congratulate-kim-seon-ho-seo-ye-ji.htm

Quote from source: "Seo Ye Ji Voted Number 1 at the 57th Baeksang's TikTok Popularity Award

As the TikTok Popularity Award wraps up, the "It's Okay to Not Be Okay" star Seo Ye Ji took the top spot with 789,170 votes." Seoyeajihusband (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done @Seoyeajihusband: pleass provide a reliable source for any changes you want to be made. kdramastars.com is not considered a reliable source and should not be used in articles. Alex (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

Remove Controversy content Bekind37 (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

ALL CONTROVERSIES ARE DENIED AND FALSE. Bekind37 (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You may join the discussion in the section above. – NJD-DE (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Check above this page. Wikipedia is not censored and whether if you like it or not, the "Controversy" section shall not be removed. With that being addressed, have a good day. 😊👍 —beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️ 12:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Controversies- Another Way

Hello Alexanderlee , i added fully sourced material that reported the actress created a dispute during the promotion of the film Another Way, even resulting reactions from other actors and a formal response from the director. After -ink&fables remarks, i did find a)sources for this controversy from the time when this actually happened b) official responses that have been issued by the involved parties. User Hpys reverted my edits with no explanation, so i can't WP:BRD as they don't explain what's wrong to correct. I did receive an edit warring alert for reverts from a user who created an account ONLY to revert my fully sourced good faith edits without explanation or suggesting what is wrong with them. Basickk (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Basickk: the sourcing wasn't why I advised you to follow BRD. You were reinserting after two different editors had reverted your additions. I don't see how you "can't WP:BRD" – you made a bold edit by adding the information, you were reverted (more than once), so you should discuss and gain consensus on whether the information should be inxluded instead of repeatedly adding the information. Alex (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Alexanderlee: How can i discuss with a "ghost" user that was created only to revert my edits without explanation? The fist time i updated this wiki, -ink&fables removed just a line which was well respected by me, then Hpys reverted the whole update and i did undid her revert. -ink&fables then questioned the sources and the neutrality of the news, that's why i made a new edit with new sources. Hpys then reverted it again. So this isn't about let's discuss whether this information should be included or even if we can improve the information provided here. Per WP:BRD when reverting, you have to be specific about your reasons, which doesn't happen in my case. I made an effort per WP:PRESERVE to improve my update according to the suggestions. I am not going to add the information again, even though finding the sources from 2017 took actually an effort for me. I question this article's neutrality though and leave it to the future editors to deal with fan wars and ghost accounts. Basickk (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Controversies section

@-ink&fables:@Alexanderlee: @HurricaneEdgar: @RoseGold1250: @Sunuraju: @SunDawn: I'm sorry but I don't who made the controversies section but why is it included on Seo Ye-ji's page, when the same "controversy" is no where to be found on Kim Jung-hyun's page, in fact it has been deleted. This gives off a gross perception of bias and intent to defame SYJ if the same controversy is not listed under Kim Jung-hyun's page, violating Wikipedia's neutrality policy.VietPride10 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello VietPride10! Hope your day is well! The problem I found in this article is the "controversy" is well sourced, neutral, and well referenced, but some editors keep deleting it, violating a Wikipedia guidelines of WP:NOTCENSORED. The principle of WP:NEUTRAL in Wikipedia is that we prose the article neutrally, not that we ensure an artist gets the same number of criticism as with other artists. It is not a violation of Wiki policies that Kim Jung-hyun didn't get his own Controversy section. If you have well-resourced reference about Kim Jung-hyun's controversies, please add them into the article. If you do have questions, please do ask! Thank you! SunDawn (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@SunDawn: As the controversy surrounds the two actors it would only be appropriate that it also appear under KJH's article as well, but the controversy section in his article has been deleted, with no pushback whatsoever. It is not fair to have the controversy only on one actor's page if the scandal surrounds the both of them. VietPride10 (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Could you point out the diffs to me where his Controversies section is deleted without explanation? I have taken a short look at the history of the article and I don't see major addition/deletion of content, just some vandalism that is reverted. Again, if you add content that are well-referenced, well-sourced, and with neutral prose, it will not be deleted. SunDawn (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@SunDawn: #1 & #2VietPride10 (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello VietPride10 (talk · contribs) as described at the edit summary, the source (Soompi) is not considered reliable per WP:RS, thus can't be used as a source. The sources used at Seo Yea-ji is different, thus it can't be compared. A consensus has been established that Soompi are not reliable source. SunDawn (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@VietPride10: Hi, I am the one who has written the current form of that section after repeated addition of such informations by anonymous users. I think I tried my best to write it in a neutral point of view so that no other meaning can be derived. I ensured to only cover those issues which has been addressed by her agency. I removed the alleged claims that has been denied by her agency. As you pointed out, I'm the one who has removed the controversy section from Kim Jung-hyun's article because those were not supported by reliable source. I have no "bias and intent to defame" the actress. Even I have contributed significantly to her page, if you see her page's history. -ink&fables «talk» 03:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@-ink&fables: I think the bias comes into it when you wrote the section for this article, yet completely removed it from Kim's article even though you know reliable sources are available becauss you added them here. I'm not saying that was your intention, but I can see how someone would view that as biased. @VietPride10: Looking at Kim's article history, the only reason it was removed was becauss or poor sourcing, so I don't see any reason why the information cannot be restored with reliable sourcing to support. Alex (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Alexanderlee: Hi, I am not biased at all and it shouldn't look also. If you'll read the content which I removed: to read [8], you can completely see that it was written in way that defames Seo Yea-ji more than anyone. It was written in such a way that shifts all of his blame on her. More than the source it was not written in a neutral way. It takes time and energy to write anything and specially on controversial topics and that too in a neutral way. I added content on this page with reliable sources because I didn't wanted any anonymous user to come and write anything just because the content related the controversy was absent on the page. At the moment there are total 5 alleged scandals that are going around her which are covered by reliable sources and even more than 5 which are covered by unreliable sources. My intention to add the information related to controversy here was not an attempt to defame her but to prevent any addition of non-neutral and defamatory informations. -ink&fables «talk» 09:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@-ink&fables: I'm not saying that you are biased or have intentionally acted in any way, but if that is how you have taken my comment then I apologise for that. I don't think you've acted in bias, what I am saying is that I can understand how someone could view it as biased that it is included in Seo's article yet removed from Kim's article when it is added it to one and removed from another despite sources being available. Alex (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Alexanderlee: No, don't apologise. I made the comment just to show my stand and point. I will try, if I can, to add content on Kim Jung-hyun's page. But I am not sure how long I will take. Thank you and happy editing. -ink&fables «talk» 10:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: FYI--your (correct) edit about the controversies keeps getting removed--may be worth it to escalate to a secondary source. I've reverted the changes so they're on the page, but it's likely they'll get taken down again. 2601:46:101:8F20:354A:4A9:C5CF:61D9 (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC) LeafPlacement

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seo_Yea-ji/Archive_1&oldid=1140472735"