Talk:Baekho (singer)

Removal of 2018 prosecution case
Instead of edit warring, please take this time to discuss your reasons of removal about Baekho's prosecution case. Do not continue to remove information. Also pinging and  as they were involved in the recent reverts. lullabying (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating the discussion. I would have liked to start it myself but I'm still learning the ropes in this platform. What I've already thoroughly learned in life however is that the world can be very cruel against persons who had been charged of a crime even if the latter was subsequently proven to be false. I apologize if you've been inconvenienced by what you have perceived as 'disruptive editing' but I believe it would be right to maintain the non-inclusion of that prosecution case against him first while the discussion is ongoing. I understand, of course, where you are all coming from but I hope you can also see from the point of view of one falsely charged. To recount, the case never even reached the court because there was no finding of probable cause in the prosecution's office. It was proven that the claims have been unsubstantiated. He was falsely accused and yet made to endure unwarranted hate from the public at the time. The case have been subsequently expunged on his official records. And yet after all that, here we are touting his sexual harassment case as if it's the only notable thing in his personal life. Is it really necessary to include this in his profile? If you or your children have been falsely charged and underwent the hell of being so charged, do you think it would be right, do you think it would be just to have such false charge bannered in your personal profile for life? The media accounts about this case will forever be available on the internet of course but to purposefully tag a person in his own profile of such case is just plain cruel. At least on this front, I hope you can consider how expungement laws can become largely useless and how persons falsely charged can never have a shot at starting anew if we promote this policy of including dismissed charges in person's profile just because it had courted media attention. Please reconsider. Thank you. baekho0721 (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This article exists to document any notable events that occurred in the subject's life and this case is notable as there were formal charges and it passes WP:GNG, as in there was coverage. Not including the information on the basis that it "hurts my favorite singer's reputation" is not a valid reason why it should be removed, especially as reliable sources have already reported the event with information up to date. The information that was included the article does mention that the charges were dismissed and also used neutral language ("allegations", as in "accusations that have not been proven to be true"), If you feel this should be integrated into the "career" section so as to not bring WP:UNDUE attention, that could be an option if the other editors are on board with this. I also want to point out that your username alone suggests a conflict of interest and may affect the neutrality of this article. lullabying (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The main objection is not that it "hurts my favorite singer's reputation" but that this type of inclusions hurt the reputation and chances of people falsely charged. Expungement laws have been rendered nugatory because of practices like this. To note, this was a 2017 case that you just recently decided to be a notable event in the subject's life. While I laud your efforts in being an active Wikipedian, it is respectfully requested that in so doing, you also consider humanitarian considerations in choosing what notable events must be put in a subject's profile. Also, the username is such because I've only been able to contribute on this singer's profile at the moment. Should I become as prolific as you are, I would gladly change it to a much neutral name like yours. baekho0721 (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The prosecution case still happened and it passes WP:GNG. It is considered a notable event. Removing it, especially for reasons that are not centered by policy and more on personal feelings, affects the neutrality of this article -- if this case had been non-notable I would vouch for it to be removed, but since the charges were formal and there was media coverage, it is considered notable enough to be included. lullabying (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Notability Guidelines of Wikipedia and any such rules of this platform do not exist in a vacuum. They need to be viewed in conformity with existing international laws and practices. They must be exercised taking into consideration sound data policies. Just because an information conforms with the WP:GNG doesn't mean that it is justifiable to include it in one's profile. Expungement law is one such consideration. Clean-slate policy is another. It is amazing how one person can so thoroughly violate these consideration by putting a premium on Wikipedia guidelines. You have that much power. You opted not to put this information in 2017 when it was relevant and chose to include it only now, 2 years after the fact. The conclusion can be nothing but that the event need not really be mentioned. Your vouching to remove this portion you so kindly and single-handedly included will be very much appreciated. baekho0721 (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that you had three requests to bring this to the talk page, and that was before you had even made any attempt to explain why you were removing sourced content. You mentioned expungement, however, criminal records are never expunged in South Korea so I'm not sure what your point is there. It happened and was reported on by various outlets, and it is neutral. If it stated he was charged, or didn't state he was acquitted then I would understand removing the section. As it is now, I don't agree with removing it. Alex (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The time in which I started editing this article is not relevant and I'm still not seeing any argument against including this information beyond "it hurts my favorite singer's reputation." Facts are the prosecution case still happened and was a notable event, as several news outlets had covered it -- moreover, formal charges were filed. The information that had appeared on the article is up to date and uses neutral language in stating that the allegations are not proven to be true, charges were dismissed, and the subject was found not guilty. There is nothing incorrect about the wording. lullabying (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit dispute, full protection
Involved users:

I have fully protected the article and restored the pre-edit war revision per WP:STABLE. Please discuss your concerns here on the talk page instead of Uconstantly reverting each other. This back-and-forth disruption has gotten out of hand. Unless you're interested in getting blocked, I suggest you discuss your concerns here. Ə XPLICIT 03:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baekho_(singer)&diff=prev&oldid=991843739 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicUserID4108 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's discussion of the same thing as above. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and seems to accurately reported facts from discussions of law cases. The large removal of sourced content seems to be to protect the subject matter than any attempt to remove unreliable sources. So I agree with the current stable page. Evaders99 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Information is reliably sourced and presents the facts in a clear and neutral manner, it was reported by multiple outlets so I don't see why it should be removed. Regarding the vote manipulation that was also removed, yes there is a separate article that goes more in depth about it all, but the section in this article comtains information specifically relating to Baekho. It would seem odd to me not to include it. Alex (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Lawsuit information was sourced by reliable sources (i.e. The Chosun Ilbo and The Korea Herald are considered reliable per WP:KO/RS. Information was blanked/replaced with strong (borderline biased) wording without any improvements to sourcing; edit summaries from point to search engine results instead as proof. Like  pointed out, the edit warring about this topic seems to be more about "protecting the subject's reputation" more than it is about improving accuracy. For the Mnet vote manipulation investigation, the section could be condensed a little but the current stable page is fine in my opinion. lullabying (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * and turned out to be sockpuppets of each other, perhaps of the user in the thread above. They have been blocked and I have reduced the article's level of protection. Ə XPLICIT  12:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , can you check if is another sockpuppet? The user is continuing to replace stated facts with biased information and nonexistent sources while marking edits as minor. lullabying (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Obvious ducks to me, I've blocked three accounts in addition to page protection. Ə XPLICIT 12:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)