Talk:Burning Sun scandal: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:36, 16 July 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Burning Sun scandal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Korea C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean popular culture working group.

Sexology and sexuality C‑class Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Roy Kim's involvement

Today it was revealed that Roy Kim was also involved in the Seungri/Jung Joonyoung chat rooms by the Korean Huffington Post.

https://www.huffingtonpost.kr/entry/roy-kim_kr_5ca32670e4b03e061e39b88d?g4i --94.216.9.121 (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split

Propose to split article in sections as page is 111kbytes in size which is far too big. Furthermore, more information will be added in time to come as investigations are still ongoing. 112.199.129.242 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to split the development/timeline section out into its own page. 112.199.129.242 (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too soon to split, the Section "Criminal cases, allegations, bookings and arrests" is recommended to be summarized and trimmed when more of the arrests are made; and the Introduction can be trimmed and summarized more, with final details. Taking out the Section "Development" leaves very little to the page. And, I don't think it would fit well into a timeline, the narrative style is better, as many of the points are tied together by multiple dates, instead of one. The readable portion is not too large for a subject like this, as a lot of space is being taken up by the Reference section. I suggest we give it some time.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into the details: the article's Page Statistics [1] show it has 8,761 words, which on the Article size - readability to be more the size of an article that is 50 kB, "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words....." As I said, I believe the lengthy Reference section is making the page look particularly long. (So many citations were necessary as the informaton has been teased out, in bits and pieces, and sometimes with translations varying.) In addition, it has 38 sections, which while helping the reader to easily access sections from the Contents, is also causing the page to look longer than it is. Wikipedia Article Size says "no need for haste" to split...."Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage."--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to give it some time before deciding to split and which one to split. Meloras (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I also suggest that the opening (the summary at the top of the page, I forget the correct name) be shortened, or re-written entirely? Holy shit is it ever LONG! 5 paragraphs of info that could be condensed into 2 or 3, and with a much smaller word count. Does it really have to be as long as World War I or am I in the wrong here and does the damn intro really need a long winded 4 page essay? Because you should be able to find stuff like the star's quotes IN their corresponding sections when you're looking through the article. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 12:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the Intro. was lengthy. It was mostly the original creation of the page [2] as a stub, when the current events were just unfolding, and should have been implemented into the body. So, I have now moved some Intro. information to the body of the article, including the chatroom quote. It still needs further rewriting and synopsis, which is pending the judicial conclusion, arrests and adjudication, which are forthcoming.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now: You can, however, condense a lot of the article to more concise points. The scandal, although big, isn't big enough to warrant several articles yet, wait until it gets big enough like the Park Geun-hye and Choi Soon-sil scandal. Tibbydibby (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, in addition to shortening the Intro., the lengthy Section "Criminal cases, allegations, bookings and arrests" has been summarized and renamed as "Investigation summary" (still needs removal of some redundant citations), and sub-headings for the last two sections were removed. All have made the page a little more concise and tidy. As this scandal is still current, more changes and summaries are anticipated.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's clear there's no consensus to split at this time, I've gone ahead and removed the tag. Which does not mean the discussion needs to be concluded. El_C 02:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 -----
 Since it's clear there's no consensus to split at this time, I've gone ahead and removed the tag. Which does not mean the discussion needs to be concluded. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 02:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
-== False and not sourced ==
-False and not sourced [[User:Yuiharui|Yuiharui]] ([[User talk:Yuiharui|talk]]) 14:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
-: There's literally 238 references cited in the article, from the Washington Times to many credible news outlets in Korea. Stop your trolling. [[User:Evaders99|Evaders99]] ([[User talk:Evaders99|talk]]) 20:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
-:The introduction,  at least, seems to have poor sources, mostly from Western press with very little understanding of the subtleties of the case and almost no native knowledge. I suggest using Korean sources for Korean subjects--their understanding is more detailed, they don't get basic facts wrong, and most importantly,  they continue to follow the story as it applies to their society unlike all the western media outlets who have neither followed up on the developing story, nor issued corrections for distribution of facts that time has proven to be false.
-Moreover, the overt reliance on Western press sources furthers a rather problematic idea that the English press emanating from a western country is somehow more authoritative and reliable. This can easily be corrected by using Korean sources.[[User:Agartthaagarttha|Agartthaagarttha]] ([[User talk:Agartthaagarttha|talk]]) 15:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
-== Updating the article introduction to reflect the current status of the case ==
-The current introduction does not adequately reflect the developments in the case to date. This should be changed based on the most recent stories on the case trials in the Korean press.  [[User:Agartthaagarttha|Agartthaagarttha]] ([[User talk:Agartthaagarttha|talk]]) 15:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
-:This page, especially the introduction,  misrepresents  the nature of events to defame one party; the information presented does not adequately reflect current status of events, many of which were still evolving and unclear. Many of the sources provided by this page is outdated or not credible as of July 2020. [[User:Maria2611|Maria2611]] ([[User talk:Maria2611|talk]])  <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 15:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-::Agree strongly. Strong recommendation to entirely re-write the introduction with references to articles that reflect the current status of the case. Reference to the old articles can be made as a nested reference to reflect the intensity of the scandal, but not as reliable citations regarding accuracy of facts.[[User:Agartthaagarttha|Agartthaagarttha]] ([[User talk:Agartthaagarttha|talk]]) 15:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
-:::Agreed. The introduction needs to be majorly reworked to add  new information revealed in relation to the case in 2020. Failure to to do this makes the information outdated and incorrect. ([[User talk:Anuka010|talk]]) 19:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
-::::I agree , the introduction need a lot of work and the sources are not reliable , most of them are from global media articles that are quite doubtful.[[User:Elin01004|Elin01004]] ([[User talk:Elin01004|talk]]) 15:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
-== Inadequate reflection of Kim Sangkyo's role ==
-Kim Sangkyo is mentioned as a first reporter, whereas according to current court proceedings, he was the first offender on the scene as he is currently under trial for sexual assault, including one instance that took place on the night he had the altercation at the Burning Sun. This seems to be against the platform neutrality policy and also incredibly hurtful to sexual assault victims. Please consider editing the article introduction/ summary to adequately reflect this. I notice that my cited references to his trial have been removed and I am rather nonplussed by this.[[User:Agartthaagarttha|Agartthaagarttha]] ([[User talk:Agartthaagarttha|talk]]) 15:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
-|url= https://m.nocutnews.co.kr/news/amp/5281079
-|url= https://n.news.naver.com/article/001/0011634523
-|url= https://www.soompi.com/article/1324669wpp/police-involved-in-initial-burning-sun-assault-case-cleared-of-charges-kim-sang-kyo-forwarded-to-prosecution
-== Unnecessary Emphasis on Seungri  ==
-The Burning Sun Scandal's main perpetrator was Kim Sang Kyo. This scandal later links together with Jung Joon-Young's molka chat case. However, a large part of this page is dedicated to rather pointless and extraneous details of Seungri's life and do not seem be neutral. Specifically, under Burning Sun nightclub, the page says:
-:"It was a club suitable for Seungri to play the "luxury party host" like his nickname, Korea's modern-day Great Gatsby, given to him for his "taste for the high life". He and Big Bang members had revealed his "colorful party life" and "extensive network of friends" during appearances on entertainment shows."
-Moreover, the inclusion of 'Seungri's background as a businessman' is bias and irrelevant to the topic of this page. --[[User:Maria2611|Maria2611]] ([[User talk:Maria2611|talk]]) 16:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
-Agree. Recommend to edit and remove references that seemed to pander to cheap sensationalism rather than relevant, current facts. [[User:Agartthaagarttha|Agartthaagarttha]] ([[User talk:Agartthaagarttha|talk]]) 16:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
-Agree, I also recommend to edit. Author of this page seems to be very biased against Seungri. [[User:Rothova|Rothova]] ([[User talk:Rothova|talk]]) 18:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
-Agree, some information stated in the page is one-sided and interpreted incorrectly, the term "sex bribery" may be used in the korean language but it is not of common parlance in the english language and requires a re-look. The page loses neutrality as it does not highlight the statements made by Seungri during the trial and investigation which is a very important aspect of the narrative and will readers to attain a balanced perspective. For instance, thess articles mentions that Seungri was booked on charges of supplying prostitutes and while he denied the same, he announced his retirement from the industry: https://www.forbes.com/sites/caitlinkelley/2019/03/12/bigbang-seungri-kpop-scandal-prostitution-retire/#64dc0f48794e , https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/12/k-pop-scandal-big-bang-seungri-south-korea-charged-over-illegal-prostitution-ring .([[User talk:Anuka010|talk]]) 19:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
-:I agree , most of it seems pretty baised and not neutral at all . also the unnecessary focus on Seungri's lifestyle doesn't have any relation with the case [[User:Elin01004|Elin01004]] ([[User talk:Elin01004|talk]]) 15:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)