Talk:Suga

(RfC Complete): Infobox Photo

I've reverted the infobox photo from the photo of the subject at Yeongsan Police Station, back to the previous professional photo. I don't think it's particularly appropriate to have a photo of the subject at a police station as the lead photo given we have high quality professional photoshoots that meet Wikipedia's license requirements.

Can we come to a consensus whether or not the photo's inclusion would be beneficial if included inline in the DUI allegation section? RachelTensions (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Also it's pretty obvious to see that this article has a very high risk of being brigaded by BTS fans from Twitter who would rather the article be squeaky clean and remove any reference to the DUI allegation at all. RachelTensions (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The photo is illegal. Right now, it's not supposed to be publicly transmitted to any sources. It is likely there will be lawsuits based on the use of the photo for those who do use it.

As well, those photo lines have been the reason some celebrities in Korea have committed suicide. I'd like to believe one would err on the side of caution about illegalities and also be compassionate. Odetteroulette (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no issue to the incident being included in the article as the artist and company confirmed he did fall while riding a scooter after drinks at dinner.

The concern is that the S Korean press is flouting the journalistic code of ethics, behaving more like gossip magazines than actual reporters. There have been numerous occurrences of false and fabricated information being spread, incorrect CCTV footage, etc. The priority seems to be clicks and views rather than reporting unbiased facts, a worldwide issue and side effects of the Internet age.

Given that police officials also declined the photo line and press was not permitted to be on site, including the photo inline in the DUI allegation section does not appear to be particularly beneficial to the article. Perhaps including the confirmed CCTV clip and linking to the scooter traffic law would be more helpful especially since there have been recent changes/enforcements to the law. Jkking6 (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

What content from the DUI section constitutes gossip from South Korean media? As far as I'm aware the section reflects the facts that came directly from either the Police or Big Hit Music themselves. RachelTensions (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I said the DUI section was fine to leave. I didn't say any of it constituted gossip from South Korean media. The only bit that may be iffy is whether or not the 3 officers recognized him; there were conflicting reports on that.

I brought up the South Korean media gossip in response to your comment that the article would be swarmed by fans trying to delete the section altogether and in regards to whether the photo should be included inline.

I believe the concern is due to the lack of reputable sources to cite as seen with a previous edit (which has since been rectified).

Including the photo in question given the circumstances in which it was taken and its source seems ill-advised as these publications that were previously thought to be reputable have now demonstrated to the contrary. Jkking6 (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I will note neither this idol, who committed terrible acts against women nor this entertainer, who also committed more severe crimes, have their photo line photos anywhere in their Wikipedia pages.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seungri

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Beom-soo_(businessman)

Also, yesterday, the news organization Dispatch was suspended from X(Twitter) for sharing the video and photos from the photo line. Photo lines must be approved by the police. This one was not and is therefore illegal. Here is an article discussing how these are beginning to be considered human rights violation issues:

https://asianews.network/korean-celebrities-on-photo-line-walk-of-shame-or-equal-treatment/

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/opinion/2024/08/638_262581.html

I want to reiterate photo lines are not like press conferences that the celebrity willingly goes to and speaks. The press block the entrances and exits and create a pathway that the celebrity must follow and forcing them to have their photo taken and then won't let them enter until they speak. These actions have contributed to self harm and suicide by some celebrities and do not create a situation of adequate consent. I would hope Wikipedia would err on the side of compassion and caution, considering the very real possibility these photo lines will be banned in the future entirely.

I don't have any other complaints about the DUI section now that the information seems to be corrected and is now based on reliable sources. Thank you. Odetteroulette (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Also just to clear up any confusion re: the "legality" of the photo: it is important to state that the photo in question is of the subject appearing in public, standing in front of reporters, microphones, and cameras, giving a statement.

There was no possible expectation of privacy by the subject in this instance whatsoever. I'm not sure where the "illegal photo" mumbo jumbo on this talk page is coming from other than from people who just want to cover the whole incident up. RachelTensions (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't "mumbo jumbo." The police told them not to do it, and they did it anyway. There are sources included. I think consent here is highly questionable as the journalists blocked the entrances to the station so that he had to appear in front of them. Odetteroulette (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to discuss what a photo line is, as it is not a press conference with a willing participant, but an illegal situation where the press bars the subject from entering the building until they have "consented" to a photograph and a statement, something the police in this case told them not to do. There could also be longer discussion about the problem of the photo lines and their illegality and how they have led to suicide and include the problems of the press in this case, how the press had to apologize for lying, using fake CCTV footage that wasn't Min Yoongi, have no sources for the BAC. Or it might be prudent to wait until the investigation is complete and make the correct statements then. Odetteroulette (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

"The police rejected a photoline, a legal way for the press to gather and address serious criminals. Despite this, reporters were seen lining up outside on August 22, 2024."

https://www.desimartini.com/international/ott/army-have-the-last-laugh-bts-suga-does-not-appear-at-police-station-while-k-media-swarms-entrance-since-morning/10e1479f80842/

Media not permitted to gather outside police station by police = no photo line = no statement to press

South Korea: consent required to take a picture and publish a picture

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements Jkking6 (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem relevant, fair, or necessary to include the image in the article. It's not from an official press conference, nor is it evidence of the alleged crime. Looking at other Korean celebrity pages, sections for accused or convicted crimes do not include such photos. It's also not a long section that would benefit from being visually broken up with an image. If you feel an image is needed, we could brainstorm ideas that are less damaging and more relevant. Pintsizedpunk (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:BLPIMAGE covers this: Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. Using that picture can create the false impression that he has been convicted of a crime, or that the situation is way worse than it is. We need to be extra careful with BLPs. I know the subject did not expect to be photographed part will be contested cause he spoke to journalists but, as other people have explained, there is a single entrance to the police station so avoiding the media was impossible. Moreover, refusing to publicly apologize in those circumstances is not really an option and pretty much expected from public figures. Coerced consent is not really consent.

BLP issues aside, is not even a better picture that the one being currently used. This one is a screenshot from a video, taken at night, and not very high quality. Obviously a professional picture will look better. Current picture is from last year, so no one can argue that the subject doesn't look like that anymore. - Ïvana (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Closing this RfC: consensus is that the photo's inclusion in the article wouldn't be appropriate in this instance. In addition the photo is nom'd for deletion at commons and will probably proceed. No further action needed RachelTensions (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Request change of photo

The photo edit of the illegal photo should be changed back to the Marie Claire photo or another professional photo. The one used presently was taken without consent in a photo line that was banned by the police. It is also not a professional photo.

As well, I request that anyone who makes edits like these be banned from editing BTS pages for any of the members as there may be malicious intent from someone who is engaging in what is known as a fan war, which is not professional or ethical on Wikipedia's pages. Odetteroulette (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The photo had already been removed prior to your request. A request for consensus for inclusion in the article has been posted at Talk:Suga#Infobox Photo though I doubt it will return as the main article picture.

Re: your request for edits like these to be banned from editing BTS pages... these are good faith edits that don't constitute a user being blocked. In addition, Wikipedia isn't a BTS playground, we can't block editors from only editing BTS-related pages. It's all or nothing. Sorry. RachelTensions (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It's simply a caution that this particular user may be violating Wikipedia's rules. Odetteroulette (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

And thank you for removing the photograph and replacing it with something professional. Odetteroulette (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Technically, one can be partially blocked from editing from certain articles, but it will not be done in this instance as what @RachelTensions said, the edit was done in good faith. As far as I can tell, no Wikipedia rules have been being violated here.

Additionally, this is not taken in a photo line within the police station. Tracing back to the source of the image https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAazwHMO2NI, it was taken outside the police station, which anyone, as far as I can tell from the source, is allowed to take photos or videos. If there is a consensus to replace the image as such, you may also see WP:NOTCENSORED. – robertsky (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Photo lines in South Korea refer to the press line that forms outside of the station.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/opinion/2024/08/638_262581.html

In this particular case, press reported that police stated there would be no photo line. The media disregarded and gathered outside anyway. Jkking6 (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

One resource is to request for file to be deleted on Commons. See c:Commons:Deletion requests and c:Commons:Deletion policy. – robertsky (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you.

Regarding the edit being done in good faith, I looked through the user's previous edits and it is possible that the edit was made as part of a childish "fan war". A subset of fans of the group, whose pages the user edited, routinely antagonize BTS. The speed at which the photo was initially uploaded to wiki (from the time it was taken) seems opportunistic.

Additionally, there were recent news articles of fans of this group promoting drunk driving while pretending to be fans of SUGA with the intent to paint him and his fans in a negative light.

I recognize that this is likely not enough for a partial temporary block as there is no overt evidence against the user, but the editing is at the very least questionable. Jkking6 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that you retract your statement about the other's editing pattern made without evidence provided as this can be interpreted as casting aspersions and can be seen as a personal attack. – robertsky (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone involved at all with Kpop, as the editor is, would know these photo line photos are a serious problem and that it isn't a professional photo, but a coerced one. It isn't personal to note that should be a known issue already. Including it was a problem. If these things do not happen from this editor in the future, I'm sure it will be fine. Odetteroulette (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I acknowledged in my comment that there is limited evidence and was merely pointing out a potential conflict of interest. In my line of work, we routinely vet studies/articles to ensure lack of bias by checking who the authors work for and who fund them. It is not a personal attack to point this out. The additional information was only provided to give context to those who may be unaware of the current situation. Jkking6 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to point this out. No, it is. This is casting aspersions without concrete evidence. We simply don't do that here, and we don't talk smack about other editors unless we have definite proof. (Most of the time, the spidey senses are limited to WP:SPI or WP:COPYVIO.) That being said, a holler to @Flabshoe1 for your inputs on the above. Jkking6, your reasoning has a risk of broad application on other unrelated editors. Not every editor who edits on kpop articles routinely may be aware of the norms of the kpop scene. I certainly don't. Assume good faith and don't adopt battleground mentality. Keep this up and you may risk a block, if it is not from me, from other admins. – robertsky (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a baseless accusation without evidence. I have never involved myself in editing any article content related to the DUI allegation and attempted to "antagonize" Suga in any way. When uploading Creative Commons-licensed photos from Blackpink's recent pink carpet event, I saw several recently uploaded videos from the same channel and thought it would be a good opportunity to update other lead photos to a more recent one as well. While I am aware of the DUI allegation, I was not aware of the concept of a "photo line" or that coercion was possibly involved, as this is not a commonly brought up topic in K-pop at all. It is a completely unfounded personal attack to attack me without any evidence and link me to misbehavior including "recent news articles of fans of this group promoting drunk driving while pretending to be fans of SUGA" (I have never heard of this before?) I respect whatever the community decides regarding the inclusion or deletion of these photos, since there is a greater context than I originally knew about. Flabshoe1 (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, occupational hazard on my end. When we point out potential conflicts of interest at work (i.e. sponsors of a study, author employed by the company behind the product, etc.), we don't do it as an attack on the authors but to raise awareness and remind readers to think critically about potential bias. Jkking6 (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2024

In the "DUI allegation" section of the article it is stated in the first sentence that "Suga was allegedly driving an electric scooter" with the hyperlink of electic scooter leading to a page about motorcycles. According to the official statement of Suga and the agency, but also, based on the confirmed cctv footage, what he was driving can be descibed best as an "E-scooter" or "Motorized scooter".

Attached is a link to an article as a source for the cctv footage . Ollysf (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes it goes about 18 mph at top speed, and in the CCTV footage, he was going about 8 mph, wearing a helmet, in the bike lane. Odetteroulette (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is a link to a video about the exact scooter from Sean Kim. The important part of the video is at 10:49. It has a complimentary basket on the back and is marketed as a mini-scooter or mini-kick board. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nocMQUYm9V8

It is NOT a motorcycle or moped. Odetteroulette (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Please provide reliable & neutral sources that state as such. Your own statements and deductions based on pictures/videos do not constitute WP:reliable sources RachelTensions (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The police literally released the information about the type of scooter that it was, and Sean Lim is a journalist who reported on what they said. He has the photos, the name of the scooter, etc. I gave you the link and the timestamp.

I'm not sure what is requested here then that would be considered "reliable" journalism since the media that released all the incorrect information passed muster earlier and had to be changed, yes?

I don't think a quote from Koreaboo is going to be very reliable. I did in fact give you a neutral source. It is not "my deduction." Also, I find this argumentative stance on your part a bit troubling. I am attempting to provide correct information and would like to be viewed as doing so, especially since I gave you literal links to a journalist with this information.

I would ask that you also remove your statements on BTS's fans here as those comments are "casting aspersions" without any proof. Thank you. Odetteroulette (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The timestamps for the scooter information start at 7:20 on the link. He has the brand, the type, the photos, the speed, etc.

Obviously, it will be even more helpful when the police make their official report. At that time, we will know the real BrAC and they can confirm again what they said earlier that Mr. Lim is reporting. Thank you. Odetteroulette (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the onus is on the requester to provide reliable sources for information that they want inserted or changed in an article. The reliable source currently cited in the article states the subject was riding an “electric scooter”.

We have reliable sources for “electric scooter”. I haven’t seen any information in reliable sources that states otherwise. Timestamps from a kpop gossip YouTube channel do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sources. RachelTensions (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The report however comes directly from the police. However, I am not privy to all Korean media in Hangul so I'm relying on someone who speaks English to bring the news. And the e scooter in the video is an electric scooter that is also advertised as a kickboard. It even folds so it can be carried. The police simply released the brand name so everyone would know what it was.

I would hope in the future Wikipedia would be cautious about using Korean media at all, since Korean media are still reporting incorrect information. This one just came from the police. It is why I included it. Perhaps next time you should watch the video to see instead of an immediate dismissal.

Since the investigation is now supposed to be wrapped up quickly, per a translated Korean news source, we'll hear the brand name again and you can compare. I'm sure it will help in the future to create a more reliable system for sourcing than the one that was present in the last few weeks, which had to be corrected entirely. Odetteroulette (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think I didn't site the article correctly. Here's the link https://n.news.naver.com/article/020/0003581843?sid=102 . It seems that in the source I accidently used the link of one of the images in the article. Anyway, I hope the full article helps back up my request. Ollysf (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the source - Dong-A Ilbo is a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources. However, the translation of that article just says "electric scooter", which is exactly what is stated in the Wikipedia article here. I'm not clear on what should be changed. RachelTensions (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It is translated as an "electric scooter", but it is not actually what the hyperlink of "electric scooter" shows in Wikipedia. The cctv shows that the image best fits an "E-scooter" or "Motorized scooter". I understand the matter of translation, but I think the most important thing is an accurate image of the vehicle. Someone reading the article and seeing the picture of a motorcycle while hovering over "electric scooter" is misleading. I will cite another article that doesn't metion the specific model but it says that it was foldable and for me personally translates it as kickboard at some points https://m.entertain.naver.com/article/609/0000883754 Ollysf (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

How about we just remove the link on "electric scooter" altogether since it seems there is still confusion. Part of the confusion lies in that the scooter in question very obviously has a seat as per what is stated in the article for electric scooter, whereas the articles for e-scooter or motorized scooter very clearly state that those vehicles are to be ridden standing.

Either way let's just remove the link because I'm not sure any of the articles we could link to accurately depict the vehicle in question here. RachelTensions (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the best option. Thank you! Ollysf (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps since the model is an electric scooter, it should be listed as one, but I would say we wait for the formal statement.

As for Dong-A Iibo being a reliable source, since absolutely everything so far has been wrong from that source, perhaps that needs to be reconsidered. 64.69.155.35 (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to WP:KO/RS and discuss with other editors there. — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 08:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done - wikilink on "electric scooter" has been removed as it is currently unclear which "electrified-scooter-related" article applies in this case. RachelTensions (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)