Jump to content

Talk:Suga

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RachelTensions (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 3 November 2024 (→Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2024: edit reply to Ïvana). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 [1]. Ollysf (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, I think that is the best option. Thank you! Ollysf (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Feel free to take it to WP:KO/RS and discuss with other editors there. — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 08:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1823606678761431041/J0rAbttQ?format=jpg&name=small

Requested move 21 October 2024

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move, and the the direction of this fairly well-attended discussion leaves no reason to expect that an extension of time would yield any different outcome. BD2412 T 03:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– The musician does not meet the criteria for determining primary topic per WP:PT1: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

Looking at the list of articles in the "Suga may also refer to" section at Suga (disambiguation), the musician's article does not meet WP:PT1 because it is not clear that the usage of the term "Suga" to refer to the musician is more likely than any other single topic; in fact, Sean O'Malley (fighter), who is also commonly referred to as "Suga", seems to receive significantly (almost 3x) more monthly average pageviews than the musician: pageview stats

In addition, as a common Japanese surname, there are at least 17 other articles that "Suga" could reasonably refer to, most notably former Japanese prime minister Yoshihide Suga. Clickstream data shows a not insignificant amount of people visit Suga (disambiguation) with the intention of continuing on to Yoshihide Suga. Clickstream stats

Previous move history for this article shows:
October 2021 proposal: Suga (rapper) → Suga - failed, no consensus
July 2023 proposal: Suga (rapper) → Suga (musician) - successful
August 2023 proposal: Suga (musician) → Suga - successful RachelTensions (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like a lot of the previous discussions were contentious. In this kind of a case, it seems most sensible to resolve the dispute in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few editors as possible (WP:CONS), and that is to use a normal list-based disambiguation and not a primary topic. The fans will probably have no trouble picking out their favorite item from a list, and we don't risk astonishing all the other readers who might not expect the encyclopedia to focus on such a novel topic. (Support) --Joy (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW just in case it's gone unnoticed, it should probably be pointed out that it's more likely than not that 'suga' just means 'sugar' for the average English reader, what with all the Suga Suga, Sugababes, Suga Mama, Suga Free etc. --Joy (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He does meet the criteria for WP:PT1. In terms of search results, he is the dominant figure associated with "Suga" across Google Search:[1], Google Images: [2], and Google News:[3]. The other people you've listed don't even show up for Suga. As Ïvana mention these stats: [4] all articles lead to BTS Suga not the other individuals. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Google results are easily skewed by Google's personalized search cookies that will show you what it thinks you want to see. When you run the search in an anonymous session, Yoshihide Suga is listed third after the musician and the musician's Instagram. RachelTensions (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:DPT Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 01:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of it do you think supports your argument and invalidates the above counter, though? --Joy (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DPT reads: Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google Ngram viewer, Books, Scholar, News, and Trends. Simple web searches may be problematic due to limited sources, open interpretation, and personal search bias, but may be helpful if other methods are inconclusive.
    @RachelTensions, could you clarify what you mean by saying the politician is listed third? Also, how does Instagram factor into this? When I check in incognito mode, BTS's Suga is still the only prominent figure that appears, so I'm not sure where you're seeing the politician. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 06:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So let's recap - it was your argument that Google search results were relevant, and the guideline says that such a simple web search may be problematic because of personal search bias, which is contrary to that. The counter-argument was that when they searched in an anonymous session - so hopefully with less bias - the search results aren't as tilted towards the popular musician. The response in turn shows that in your browser not even the lack of session helps change the results.
    This all illustrates why the guideline advises against depending on general Google search - their software makes decisions for us, as opposed to giving us a neutral view of how an average user will browse things. --Joy (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject Hip hop, WikiProject Korea, and WikiProject Musicians have been notified of this discussion. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 00:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Anthroponymy, WikiProject African diaspora and WikiProject English Language have been notified of this discussion. --Joy (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to Oppose as well. And I wouldn't call past discussions "contentious". They were all civil and carried out with fair discussion. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Contentious does not have to imply uncivil, but with regard to fairness, it's a fair bit problematic when the outcomes were clearly not based on structured arguments and a faithful reading of WP:CONS, but rather obvious ignoring of WP:Recentism. In general, this contributes to an apparent trend of depending on which relatively small group of editors divided on the PT1/PT2 axis happens to notice a particular discussion. --Joy (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ïvana. I also don't see what has changed in the past year to suggest that the article should be moved "back" to (musician) or a disambiguated title. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2024 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2024

As stated in the personal information section. “After being breathtested, and found to have BAC level of 0.227%,[83][84][85] he was fined and his license was revoked.” However, the police did not release the blood alcohol level. This is just gossip. Carolbug (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It's not gossip - as you've indicated in your copy+paste from the article, the statement is attributed to no less than three WP:RELIABLESOURCES: Yonhap News Agency, Maeil Business Newspaper, and The Korea Times. RachelTensions (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I've just added three more WP:RELIABLESOURCES: The Chosun Ilbo, The Korea Herald, and Korea JoongAng Daily. RachelTensions (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The fact that RS repeat unconfirmed claims does not make them valid; WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, especially for a BLP where caution should be used. The BAC level was first reported by Donga Ilbo on August 9 as an "exclusive". However, on August 12, the police held a press conference addressing the, at the time, ongoing investigation and, as reported originally by Xports News, made a statement specifically referring to the BAC level, stating "We can say that it is at a level where a license is revoked, but it is difficult to confirm the specific figure" (some other media reporting this are 1 2 3). So the figure is unconfirmed and uncorroborated, and it is not clear where Donga got it from. Media outlets repeating this does not make it true; same happened with the CCTV that was assumed to be him for days and reported as such everywhere until another investigation debunked it. In this case, no separate investigation has taken place, the media just ran with the number, and the police is unlikely to reveal the actual BAC level if they haven't done it so far (and apparently it is not common practice to disclose it). I think it should not be mentioned, but if the consensus is to keep it, then at the very least the statement by the police should also be included. - Ïvana (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have no less than six well-regarded, reliable, independent secondary sources that report 0.227%, with at least two of them attributing their source of that number as being from the police. These sources are from several weeks after the initial flurry of news broke out.
Alternative wording could be something like: "After being breathtested, and found, according to multiple sources, to have BAC level of 0.227%, he was fined and his license was revoked." which would soften it a little. RachelTensions (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suga&oldid=1255221484"