Jump to content

Talk:Apink/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hide Succession box.

I've read Succession box document, and I don't think it's necessary to have it in the page. Maybe when the editor added it, he/she had misundertood purpose of it. I've hidden it from displaying.

If you think I'm wrong, tell me why.

If some users revert my edit without disscussing in this talk page, I will revert to my revision.

If there's no problem with my decision, in 7 days starting from now, I (or other users) will remove it.

Sincerely. Ke ac lam viec tot (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

BLP issues

This article contains a considerable amount of unreferenced material and original research (WP:OR) and appears to be largely relying on 1 source (allkpop.com) . Unless some citations are found for both the Pre-Debut section and the first two paragraphs of the 2014 section, they will need a hefty copyedit. Not in the least as some of the material appears to be falling into the WP:TRIVIA bracket. Also, if individual members have been involved in other projects then this either has to be listed in a separate section or moved to the article dedicated to that individual. The inclusion of the Endorsements section is highly questionable and borders on WP:PROMO. Any suggestions? Karst (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Karst: What parts do you think are original research? I'm not sure what you are referring to. I agree that the reliance on Allkpop isn't good and replacing the citations is on my to-do list (A lot of the time there are more reliable sources but Allkpop is used anyway for some reason). About the endorsements section: I think it might be better if the table was removed and notable endorsements were written about in prose. --Random86 (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with removing the "Endorsement" tables/sections. I have tried to remove a lot of those endorsements on individual artists' articles. But I don't know how appropriate it would be if I remove them for "groups" as well. I just don't want to start "edit warrings" but I always find them irrelevant. For individuals, I don't think we even need to mention anything about endorsements, but for groups, it would be fine to mention some notable ones. --TerryAlex (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The first two sections on the pre-debut and debut contains a lot of unverified material. For instance, that Son Na-eun appears in those Beast videos might very well be true (although at a quick glance, I personally can't tell) but that needs some sort of verification. The same for the section on A Pink News, which is all unverified and has a slight whiff of promotional speak. Details on the first EP need to be referenced and the name of the fanclub would fall into the WP:TRIVIA bracket. Further referencing and a number of minor copyedits should resolve the issues so the tag can be removed. Karst (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
For the music videos, just reference the official videos on YouTube. The info for fanclub name can be taken out, or be reduced to one short sentence stating only the name with no further elaborations.--TerryAlex (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Karst:The case about referencing Allkpop or Soompi is because that is where the majority of English-speakers/International fans go to for the K-pop news. But nowadays, I see mwave.interest.me as a better alternative. Actually all three websites translate directly from Korean-language news sources, but the latter website is a part of Mnet (TV channel) (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) and often indicates full credits to where the original sources come from, while the other two are basically blogs and most of the time do not indicate the original sources. Does anyone know any other good English websites (well not Koreaboo or Kpopstarz, etc.) that post K-pop news frequently? Or we can trace back to original Korean-language sources too (though that would take some work).--TerryAlex (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Karst: I think the fanclub information is fine the way it is, but it does need a reference (I also don't understand how WP:TRIVIA would apply). About removing the endorsements, I don't see how WP:PROMO applies. If the endorsements are notable, it seems like a section could be written about them. A Pink News was the show that introduced A Pink to the public, so I think it is fine to include some information about it if it is referenced. --Random86 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: You might want to take a look at WP:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources. I've mostly been using Korea JoongAng Daily, The Korea Times, The Korea Herald (and its new site K-pop Herald) and Mwave. Also, Netizen Buzz can be useful for finding Korean sources. --Random86 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Random86: Thank you so much for the list of websites, the KpopHerald would be useful for sure, but see, with regards to K-pop, of all the websites you listed, they tend to be on the more "reliable" side and don't contain a lot of Kpop news. Allkpop and Soompi are still the ones that have all the juicy gossips (latest news about music shows, top ranking songs, who is dating who, all the speculations, etc). And that is why they are being used the most and also the reason why they are unreliable as well. Regarding "Endorsement", I agree with including the notable ones, but then my question is: how do we really define "notable"? Celebrities just have too many endorsements, listing them out is more or less just advertising to me.--TerryAlex (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: I see your point about endorsements, because it is hard to define "notable". A hypothetical situation would be something like a news article stating that a group made a significant amount of money through endorsements. Then this could perhaps be mentioned in the group's article. An endorsements section isn't really necessary, but there are articles like List of Girls' Generation endorsements. What do you think about those? --Random86 (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Random86:See, if I have my way, I'll have those articles deleted. But then other editors will jump on me for sure. I find them irrelevant though. What is the point of listing those endorsements on here? Unless, like you said, they make a lot of money, or some kind of big controversies come out of it, what is the point?--TerryAlex (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Random86: And out of 100-130 endorsements listed, there are 11 sources and most of them are from Allkpop, Soshified and WonderfulGeneration.--TerryAlex (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

About "Alleged plagiarism" section

An IP user created that section, and I deleted it. But, an user has reverted it and asked me to join a disscussion about a similar case. Now, I create this disscusion to ask:"Is it neccessary to have a section about controversies in A Pink?" Until we have a consensus about this case, no one edit content of that section. I have hid it before, if the answer is yes, it will be unhidden. Full content

Alleged plagiarism

A Pink has been the subject of a number of plagiarism accusations in their career. Among these is the similarity of their song "NoNoNo" to a first generation girl group S.E.S' song, the 2001 single, "Just In Love" from the album Surprise, which was pointed out by netizens and reported by South Korean news portal, TV Report.[43]

In June 2014, renowned choreographer Kyle Hanagami commented on Cube Entertainment using his work for a special performance of A Pink covering Beyoncé's "Partition" on You Hee-yeol's Sketchbook through his Twitter account. The choreographer addressed Cube Entertainment, and stated that he was "flattered, but credit really needs to be given where it's due.".[44]

They once again faced plagiarism accusations later in November when netizens pointed out similarities of their mini-album, Pink Luv's teasers with the work of fashion photographer, Michal Pudelka. As the controversy gained more attention, the group's company, A Cube Entertainment, released a statement, saying "We are very taken aback by these plagiarism accusations. We had no idea such photos existed. We were able to see the photos only after the controversy suddenly arose. It is definitely not the case that we worked with the photos at hand. While seeking out A Pink’s desired concept, it appears that a similar situation was staged."[45][46]

Everyone, let express your thoughts! K34c l4m v13c t0t 08:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The other discussion is here. I did not hide it to show how it looks in the article, with its sources. I see no reason to hide it when it's properly sourced. Regarding the content, however, whether you think it's necessary to include it is what we would be discussing. Other users in the other discussion have stated their reasons, some with examples. When majority votes for its removal that's when the content should be deleted. Lonedirewolf 09:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the plagiarism issues can be included, but I would have written it differently. I would try improving it if I could be sure my edits wouldn't go to waste and be instantly reverted. I agree with @Lonedirewolf: that it shouldn't be hidden or deleted right now. --Random86 (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd actually like to see the changes you would make to it, @Random86:. It's likely to happen as you say, but I can edit it back and there's no reason not to. Lonedirewolf 09:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will work on this tomorrow. --Random86 (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for deleting the section and quote @Random86: and @Lonedirewolf:. --Chiya92 09:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This information should stay because this is not a one-time incident and being repeatedly accused of plagiarism does affect their long-term legacy.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Keaclamviectot: and all, I think it's unnecessary to put "alleged plagiarism" section and i would like to request for it to be deleted. The reasons are:
1. Apink is not the composer of the song, so the accusation should not be directed to APink but the composer and I don't think it should be put on APink's bio
2. I don't think it's right to put unconfirmed rumour on wiki page. All the plagiarism rumour were started by anonymous netizens. They don't have credibility or music background to judge a song plagiarized or not. Even the copyright owner never accused or take any legal action against APink or the composer. For the dance cover, it was always a debatable area when same/similar choreo are used but it don't think it's right to put this under "alleged plagiarism". It's a cover, people do cover all the time without needed to ask permission. For example: Do people need to credit Michael Jackson when he did moonwalk dance?
Plagiarism issues are a very sensitive matters and it can hurt the artist credibility. That's why I think it's not right to put baseless rumour in their bio
3. There are a lot of Kpop artist with similar accusation and some even found guilty on court. But there are no alleged plagiarism/controversies section on their wiki page so I don't think this is fair to Apink.
To mention a few:
- IU accused of plagiarized two song "someday" and "Red shoes"[1]. Court ruled IU"someday" as plagiarism case and told JYP as the composer to pay the compensation. [2]
- SNSD also accused of plagiarism for their song "The boys"[3], their music CF [4]and album cover "Girls' Generation II ~Girls & Peace". [5]
- Shinee "dream girl" accused of plagiarizing mexican song,[6][7]
- YG Boy group on TV show "mix and match" [8]and "Win" [9] also met similar problem when using other's choreo and the original choreo complained, but they also didn't have it on their page.
4. I saw this Wiki rules: Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies [10]

--Sonflower0210 (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The controversy issue really is related to WP:NPOV. In that context, the reference to 'netizens' should be removed, it is unverifiable. As long as the references point to reliable sources, the section appears uncontroversial to me although it could do with some copyediting. What other pages contain or refer to isn't really that relevant. And if the artist performs a copyrighted song they will be prosecuted on the basis of that - the songwriting is a different issue. Karst (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


"Alleged accusations" aren't really worth citing or noting. They are not informative, do not contribute to fact, useless and serve no purpose than to target the individuals. That can be considered heresay and gossip. Until they are proven, it is irrelevant speculation. Also the cover dance, not only being an irrelevant issue, also is not at the fault of Apink or even Acube for not crediting the choreographer. Requesting omission of this section from the page. Rongderp (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Whose fault it is in this case is interesting, but a different discussion altogether. If the performance was noteworthy and statements in relation issued, then the use of reports in referencing to it could be used. Karst (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
1. Please allow me to ask a question here, who is the one who accused Apink of plagiarism?Not one identifiable person has accused them, just anonymous netizens. The source? Since it's in korean I cannot verify it. Where did the author accuse Apink of plagiarism? From the title only, it seems like a question, and not a statement "A Pink 'without Hong Yookyung', is their song a plagiarism of senior group S.E.S. or a dedication to them?"
2. Moreover, since the copyright owner never accused or took any legal action against APink/Composer/Acube, it's really just unfounded rumor, and speculation. Isn't Wikipedia basically supposed to be a dictionary? Something that unfounded, like rumor or gossip shouldn't even warrant a mention.
3. I've read the discussion on Red Velvet talk page, and I agree with @Lonedirewolf: .Does every controversy/rumour need to be documented now? Then how about other kpop artist I mentioned on my previous reply, who've experienced the same accusations, and the one that have been found guilty in court? Why has no one added this "alleged plagiarism" section on their bio?Sonflower0210 (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Sonflower0210: About #4 (in your first post), that is an essay, not Wikipedia policy. @Rongderp: I'm not saying the section on Apink's page is absolutely necessary, but sometimes allegations (even if not proven) do contribute to an article. For example, the fourth paragraph of this section: Charlene, Princess of Monaco#Marriage (this was a major story in the press at the time, even though was there no proof). Since Sonflower0210 and Rongderp are both new users I'm assuming they are Apink fans not necessarily familiar with Wikipedia policies. I am open to arguments in favor of removing the section, preferably from editors more experienced than myself. --Random86 (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If the section's an issue, I think the 1st issue can be incorporated into the section of the song's release, and the last with their latest album though I'm not sure where the second will fit. I still think most controversies are unnecessary but most agreed because of the number of accusations and the sources. While the first is questionable despite being properly sourced, in the second the choreographer himself made the accusation and the last, the company released a statement which shows both sides of the issue (Note: Wikipedia's NPOV) I'll be neutral about this for now and would like to see the opinions of others Lonedirewolf 05:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


OK let me ask you this @Random86: and @Lonedirewolf: why is Apink the only one susepticle to this while other groups who had way worse cases then them get they're sections removed?
The sources stated in the sections aren't sources at all just some random articles based on Annonimes Knetz post on from website who can just talk/post whatever they want regardless if its true or not and posting mere "rumors" on a "official" page you basically admitting they were pure facts and defaming the groups name with mere rumors spread by annominous netizens. By adding these to they're page you basically playing into the haters/anti's hands who come out and screaming about plagiarism on each turn and making them think they're succeeding in tarnishing a groups name and encourage to them to continue that behavior.
If you guys are so set on only Apink having this damaging section to they're name its only fair it get added to all groups and not just Apink. If we pull up Red Velvet's talk page they get easily cleared of a much more credible "scandal" (sort of speak) then Apink's but for them it was decided to remove them from the main page.
When we look at other groups wiki pages who had much bigger and worse scandals/plagiarisms but there's nothing on there about it and they're pages are being kept clean except for Apink's.
As for the dance instructor tweeting: Are dance covers really plagiarisms now? last I checked its only plagiarism if you earn money of other peoples work and dance covers earn you nothing and how many groups would needed to be investigated if this was bases for plagiarism?
In terms for the photoshoot: That had nothing to do with Apink as it's Acube who make the concepts and the photographers they hire to carry out this project so its more fitting to add those sections under Acube rather then Apink's name same goes for the first section posted witch should be under S.Tiger page as they wrote and composed the song for them.
And second to Random86 was it really necessary to trow them to the curve like that? Just because there new doesn't mean there words are less credible then more experienced editors on this website and isn't it the point that these pages are kept and maintained by fans of the group rather then third parties coming in and adding whatever they want based on random articles they find on the web?
In final though: If you guys are so set on getting this on Apink's page you need to add this kind of section to each and every group there is otherwise its going to look like your just set out to damage Apink name. its only fair every group gets one aswel.--StrifeRaider (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Before you go on making your own accusations against us I advice you to look up the meaning of the words 'alleged', 'plagiarism' and 'fact' then proceed to read and understand all that has been stated so far. This is a proper discussion among Wikipedia users. It makes no matter whether they're fans or not, it's to edit the pages and add notable information about the artist. This section was deleted the moment it was added if I remember correctly, so a discussion was started. The section remained because more users agreed it should stay. Now, they've shared their opinions and have voted and that's all you need to do. Lonedirewolf 15:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I have made my case about this subsection and you can be defensive if you want but the out side will only see it 1 way if this section is only added to 1 groups page and all the others do not have it. And the only 1 who made a comment about adding this section was Random86 there are no other replies regarding this issue. (this is not to attack you guys but this is how people will see it if its only added to 1 specific page)
I like to suggest we revote about this as I'm seeing more people going against it then that there are for it.--StrifeRaider (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@Random86: The thing is all the alleged plagiarisms are minuscule in significance. None were made a big deal and none were proven. In the controversy with NoNoNo, just because a couple tabloid articles were made alluding to plagiarism, doesn't make it significant enough to have a section dedicated for it. At the very most, it can be lightly addressed in the song's page or in that comeback era's sub-section, but having an entire section to call out this accusation as if it were a big deal, which it was not (as evidenced by SM Ent not taking action), is rather unnecessary. To add there is no evidence, just heresay. The dance cover of Partition doesn't even deserve to be there either as it was not made a big deal nor was it a fault of Apink or Acube, but the broadcasting company KBS and/or the show Yoo Hee Yeol's Sketchbook. That would go to those respective pages (if at all). And the picture concept plagiarism is also very negligible and is not even an issue. The section in general is entirely not needed as only 3 instances, and very insignificant instances at that, are noted. Its existence only suggests that Apink are known for plagiarism, which is not the case. I believe revision should be highly considered. Rongderp (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@Random86:, Please don't try to make it about fans or antifans. If a person is a fan or not, doesn't discredit any points made. How exactly is a new user's input any less valid than an experienced user? About your example,do you have closer and more relevant example like other kpop group/Idol? There are so many bigger rumour/controversies/crime in kpop but i didn't see it on their bio. If wiki editors really insist the importance of this kind of rumour to be documented, why not do that for all group?
@Lonedirewolf: The issue is not only the existence of the "alleged plagiarism" section but also whether you should documented a gossip or rumour. I have addressed my point of concerned above but noone have gave me any answer beside point #4. Moreover, how do you define "properly sourcing"? I read about this two wikirules about sourcing:
1. Reliable sources - Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. [11]
2. Avoid gossip and feedback loops. "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." [12] --Sonflower0210 (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Read Karst's comment again. To add, without my vote, there are four people (Karst, Random86, Chiya and TerryAlex) who are against the removal of the section, and apparently, four for it to be deleted. I don't have to point those out as well, do I? I still see it as properly sourced, and with the addition to the first issue in the section, it no longer goes against Wikipedia's NPOV. I've already stated that these could be incorporated into other sections of the article but I've yet to see other suggestions regarding this. Lonedirewolf 18:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You guys should have spoken up earlier, why waited until now? I don't know why the "Someday controversy" (not "Red Shoes") doesn't get a mention on Wikipedia, because it is obviously a big issue (this is what I mean when I say "as controversial as Paula Dean"), so maybe someone wants to add that to either IU or Park Jin-young's article. The other three...not so much, because either there were no concrete evidence, the agency has spoken up or it was just a one-time thing. Let me be clear and say that I'm not someone who likes to include every controversy on Wikipedia, I'm against it tbh (hence the RV's vote), I always try to stay as neutral as possible, but the reason why I voted to have this section stayed on here was because of the way the information was presented (the number of accusations...While the first is questionable despite being properly sourced, in the second the choreographer himself made the accusation and the last, the company released a statement which shows both sides of the issue). See, with SNSD, the CF song was rightly bought and SM didn't even bother to address the other two. For Shinee, SM made a statement clearing the issue. For the other 2 boy groups, it was just a one-time thing for both of them, it was more like a YG issue if we have to categorize it. But for A Pink, first, they had a choreographer accused them, second, although the picture issue sounded trivial to me, A Cube still had to make a statement regarding it, and with the addition of the first questionable issue. So while I might sound a bit contradictory here, (because in the A Pink's case, the agency has also spoken up and there was no concrete evidence either) but when we put all three events together like this, it made A Pink seems vulnerable. Do I make sense? But I do see your point though, A Pink aren't 100% liable whether the alleged plagiarisms are true or not so...if we want to remove the section, or maybe we can incorporate it into other sections on the page, that would be fine for me too.--TerryAlex (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I see your point's but they do not deserve there own sub section for them at best for Apink's page they should be incorporated into the page itself and the allegations should be pointed towards the company and or staff rather then the group. and the sources that have been stated so far are seem as tabloid websites especially AKP/Soompi. As for speaking up earlier, It wasn't brought up to my attention till today.--StrifeRaider (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@Lonedirewolf: @Random86: Maybe we want to incorporate the issues within the article rather than have a separate section for it? If that sounds more justifiable for A Pink then I don't mind it. Here is my question so we can have a basic rule and some ground to agree on though: from now on should we just omit anything (or at least most) controversies started by "netizens" because they are mostly unverifiable (NPOV)? We all know Korean "netizens" can be very "crazy" sometimes. [I'm referring to Karst's opinion] And for the AKP/Soompi issues, although I'm trying to move away from those websites and try to replace them with better references whenever I can, there is not much we can do since I'm betting 90% of the Kpop references on Wikipedia are from those two websites. --TerryAlex (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I've already suggested that the first issue can be incorporated into the section mentioning NoNoNo's release. The third, in the release of Pink Luv. Mention it as an issue before the album's release with A Cube's statement then how well it was received. But again, I don't know where to put the second issue which in my opinion is still worth including and out of the three actually has the most weight because the accusation came from the choreographer himself. Lonedirewolf 03:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@TerryAlex:, I do think incorporating the issues within the article is better. But, as Lonedirewolf pointed out, where would the second issue fit in? About controversies started by netizens, if we were going to agree to omit them from now on, why are we keeping them in Apink's article? If they are discussed in a reliable source is it really unverifiable? --Random86 (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Random86: Well, that is why I said "most". Since A Cube has already made a statement regarding the third issue, then it can stay. Out of the three issues, I am only concern about the 1st one since it was accused only by the netizens and reported by the media (and "netizens" can be really "funny" at times). I only thought about this after I read Karst's POV. There definitely would be exception, but in general, I just want to see if we can have something to agree on. But if I don't make any sense, then never mind. The second issue definitely has the most weight. I am thinking something along this line "In June 2014, during an episode of Yoo Hee's Sketchbook, APink performed...Subsequently, Choreographer made a tweet...As of now, neither A Cube nor A Pink has made an official statement addressing the issue." --TerryAlex (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @StrifeRaider: I'm not sure why you think I am "set on" having the plagiarism section. If you read my two previous comments, I was not 100% in favor of it, and I am still not convinced either way. I mostly didn't think it should be removed without a discussion, and Keaclamviectot had been demonstrating ownership of the article. (Contrary to what you said, I was not the only one who commented.) I also did not say new users' words were less credible—only that they might not be familiar with Wikipedia policies. Since several new users were commenting, I wanted the opinions of more experienced editors to balance the discussion. About the sources, Allkpop is only used as a source for the choreographer's tweet, and the actual tweet is embedded there. --Random86 (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand @StrifeRaider:'s point of view and I reread the section: apparently the first two accusations were made but then ignored, while only the third was taken in more consideration. The case of the suspect similarity between "NoNoNo" and "Just In Love" reminds me when it was reported the similarity between Red Velvet's logo and Roncato Valigie's one: another statement that sounded more like a trivia than a proper accusation. Now I personally think that the "Alleged plagiarism" section should be removed and the third controversy incorporated in the paragraph about "Pink Luv". --Chiya92 10:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this could be done.

First: Despite a considerable amount of criticism due to the song's similarity to the 2002 S.E.S single, "Just in Love", the song was well-received.

Seo Byeong-gi of The Herald Business later stated that although the two songs were similar, "NoNoNo" still had A Pink's distinctive sound. (<<<This could be added as well, but I just don't know how yet. Maybe something like "A Pink received a considerable amount of criticism due to the song's similarity to the 2002 S.E.S single, "Just in Love" but Seo Byeong-gi of The Herald Business later stated that although the two songs were similar, "NoNoNo" still had A Pink's distinctive sound." Then add the song's performance on the charts or any notable information during promotions for the album)

Second & Third: The group and company faced plagiarism accusations upon releasing teaser photos of the album because of its similarity to the work of photographer Michal Pudelka. This is the second time in the year that A Pink was accused of plagiarism after renowned choreographer Kyle Hanagami commented on Cube Entertainment using his work for a special performance of A Pink covering Beyoncé's "Partition" on You Hee-yeol's Sketchbook through his Twitter account in June. A Cube Entertainment released a statement saying "We are very taken aback by these plagiarism accusations. We had no idea such photos existed. We were able to see the photos only after the controversy suddenly arose. It is definitely not the case that we worked with the photos at hand. While seeking out A Pink’s desired concept, it appears that a similar situation was staged."

Please let me know what you think and what else could be done with this. Lonedirewolf 10:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi all, Thank you for your willingness to reopen the discussion about this issues and here's my opinion:
1. About the cover dance @Lonedirewolf: , the choreographer never accused Apink of Plagiarism but about not giving her credit. This is a direct quote about what she said "I'm flattered but credit really needs to be given where it's due."[13] Therefore it's not an "alleged plagiarism." Moreover, on YHY show, when artist do cover song or dance, the show seems to only put the performer and the title. I was compering IU and Apink cover and it was exactly the same. [14] [15]
Also, this is the only time Apink get called out by choreographer while YG group - iKon(used to be team B) experienced this 3 times and just like Apink, all 3 choreographer complained publicly about it.[16][17][18]
If you guys still want to put it somewhere, please avoid word plagiarism because i don't think it's appropriate and please also include this issues on the YG group (Ikon/TeamB) section too since they have been called out by the choreographer more times than Apink.
2. I'm sorry but i don't think it makes any sense for me, when you said SNSD, IU and YG Group plagiarism case are irrelevant while Apink is since their case just are similar and has been repeatedly accused by anonymous netz .
- IU accused of 3 song plagiarism in her career, for Someday [19], Red shoes ][20] and Soegyeokdong [21]
- Similarity in SNSD and Apink case.
1st, Both song are accused by Netz [22] [23]. The SNSD case were much bigger and more news outlet were covering this, While for APink it's mostly blogs, i can't find even find one english source for this, not even soompi or allkpop. For both group, there were no accusation from the copyright owner nor any legal action against them.
2nd, SNSD and Apink both accused of plagiarizing their album cover teaser.[24] [25]
3. About the song plagiarism accusation, SM(the copyright owner of SES song) take plagiarism really seriously, they recently took legal action against Philippines institution for plagiarized F(x) song. [26]. NoNoNo was one of the biggest hit in 2013. There is no way SM would not take legal action if they can prove "NoNoNo" was a plagiarism.
4. Therefore, I agree with @TerryAlex: that all rumour that start from netizens should be omitted. Netizens made baseless rumour and false accusation all the time and of course tabloid will report it but it's against WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:QUESTIONABLE . If the accusation made by the copyright owner then it's more relevant to be included.
Also can anyone please enlightened me on why this is considered properly sourced? I read wiki policy and I don't think it's comply to it. Kindly educate me.
- 1st Sentence: A Pink has been the subject of a number of plagiarism accusations in their career.
WP:SYN, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
- 2nd Sentence: Among these is the similarity of their song "NoNoNo" to the 2001 single, "Just In Love" by S.E.S from their album Surprise, which was pointed out by netizens and reported by South Korean news portal, TV Report.[27].
WP:QUESTIONABLE it is a Questionable Source because it "relies heavily on rumors and personal opinions",
WP:BLPSOURCES - "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism"
WP:BLPGOSSIP - "Avoid gossip and feedback loops"; "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources."
5. Since most of users agreed on the deletion of the "Alleged plagiarism" section. Can we please at least hide them for now before we reach consensus on other things?--Sonflower0210 (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Karst, Random86, Chiya TerryAlex and now Asdklf;. Chiya now wants the section to be removed but still wants some of the content to be incorporated into the article. That's what most of the people I've mentioned want as well. Deletion of the section, but for the content to be included in the article. Now that's still something to be discussed. Just wait for this discussion to end and for what changes majority will agree with. I don't approve of hiding it until 'we reach consensus', something the user who began this discussion have said before, when she chose to hide the section which we disagreed with. It's also bound to attract more users anyway. We might get more opinions about this. Lonedirewolf 12:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Lonedirewolf: Inclusion of the content in the rest of the article is fine. The only one I would disagree with including is Kyle's choreography. That is not a responsibility of apink or acube to include proper on screen credits and serves no significance at all. It was just a one-time dance performance on a show and doesn't fit anywhere else in the article. Rongderp (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I would support the inclusion in the text too, including the choreography issue, if it is referenced properly. Karst (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's summarize then so we can finally move on with our lives. Please give an update of your opinions regarding this matter.
Now I also agree with deleting the section but keeping the content. Lonedirewolf 13:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Karst wants to delete the section but keep the content as well. For me, I want to be fair so I will remove the first issue and only incorporate the other 2 into the article. Why? Because they were accused twice in a short time period. I stated my other reason above too, so I won't repeat. It's up to you guys now. I think the "draft" that you wrote looks good, Lonedirewoft.--TerryAlex (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

My vote is to delete all. Even though they are sourced, they are still all insignificant. But a compromise of the section and NoNoNo controversy being deleted is fine. Rongderp (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm for deleting it, for Points 1 and 3 as accusations were made but no action were taken by the copy right owners and never saw any legal actions against Acube witch leaves these 2 to be only rumors. As for point 2 The original choreographer did speak up about it that Apink used his dance routine for Partition but I don't really seeing it being Apink's fault but rather KBS and YHY for not adding the credits onto the broadcast. --StrifeRaider (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
That is an opinion, same as how I think it makes no sense for them to be blamed if the choreographer knew about his work being used and still addressing the company not KBS or the show and linking the video. Since the choreographer addressed the company about his work being used for an A Pink performance, I support including it and I've already shown how it can be done. In my draft I've presented the first issue to be a criticism and included Random86's contribution to show another view of it, but TerryAlex and Rongderp are okay with deleting the section but including the last two. Let's wait for the others then. Lonedirewolf 01:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@Lonedirewolf:I think most people already expressed their opinion and voted above on what they think should be keep or removed. Whose vote are we waiting for now? --Sonflower0210 (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Lonedirewolf: At this point, I will be fine with whatever happens, although I'm still leaning towards keeping all three. I like your draft, but for the first issue I wouldn't say "considerable" because it sounds really serious. I found a quote from Eunji that could be used (from Allkpop; original source is here):

    "Our [musical] color is similar to that of first generation idol groups. Since our style and songs are similar, there are many that say our songs overlap with S.E.S sunbaenims' music. We are also fans of S.E.S and since [those comparisons] signify that people are taking interest in us, we are thankful."

--Random86 (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If the first issue is to be included, then I do like that quote from Eunji, it covers the issue better, and makes it sound less serious as a plagiarism but more like a similarity between girl groups. I still want to compromise and take it out, but it's up to the majority votes.--TerryAlex (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • To conclude the votes, from 10 users (Please update if there's any mistake):
- 8 users voted for section removal: (All except Random86 and Asdklf)
- 6 users voted for 1st issue (Nonono Song) removal: (All except Random86, Asdklf, Lonedirewolf and Karst)
- 5 users voted for 2nd issue (Choreo) removal: (Sonflower0210,rongderp, Striferider, Chiya92 and Keaclamviectot)
- 4 users voted for 3rd issue (Pink luv teaser) removal: (Sonflower0210, rongderp, Striferider, Keaclamviectot)
So, based on the majority vote, the first section can be removed along with the first issue. I agree with Chiya92's suggestion to put third issue under Pink Luv discography. For the second issue, since it's a draw, what should we do about it? I can compromise and don't mind it to be included if we use better wording. For both remaining issues, I don't agree with the draft that @Lonedirewolf: made. I don't think we need to hange the existing wording.--Sonflower0210 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
A reminder for editors in this discussion: Voting does not normally equal a consensus. Please read this for further details. Thank you. 17:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Rockysmile11 (talk)

The votes won't do then. Right now I would like to see other suggestions on how to present the issues in a way all users can agree with. Perhaps something will come up that'll work.Lonedirewolf 05:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to suggest for the removal of the section and first issue. I can compromise for the inclusion of second and third issue if we use better wording. --Sonflower0210 (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I re-wrote the article (including all three issues) and published it in one of my sandboxes so others can see it. The link is here: User:Random86/sandbox2. I think we have reached consensus for removing the section, so maybe something like this could be acceptable until we reach consensus on which issues (if any) to keep? By the way, I think the paragraph about Secret Garden (and "NoNoNo")'s release should also include other information such as chart performance or critical reception. --Random86 (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, I would implement that. Removal of the first item will in all honestly lead to further reverts, especially considering the reference is from a news report, which appears to independent. Also, considering there was a some sort of a response to it, makes it notable enough for inclusion. Further information on chart performance would indeed be very useful and add to the notability. Hopefully this discussion will provide a template for future plagiarism issues in relation to Korean pop acts. Karst (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
For me I will never go along with a entire sub section for "Alleged Plagiarism" for any group, unless there is solid proof of one aka being sued by the copyright owners for copyright infringement. As for @Random86: draft of the new page I can go along with Issue 1 about NoNoNo being similar to SES and it is worded perfectly in my eyes and not as damaging as it was worded before. Issue 2: Like Issue 1 I can go along with the wording used by Random86 as the blame is pointed to the company rather then the girls. Issue 3: I find it still a bit long for placement. Can i recommend this "In early November, teaser images for the group's upcoming album were released. Netizens pointed out similarities between the images and the work of fashion photographer Michal Pudelka and Acube denied the accusations(link to source tweet/translation)"--StrifeRaider (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Random86: Looks alright to me. For the third issue, if it seems a bit long, perhaps only parts of the statement? Lonedirewolf 15:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@StrifeRaider: I agree that the third issue was too long. I edited it and summarized the statement instead of quoting it. --Random86 (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree to use @Random86:'s template but only as temporary solution until we reach consensus on the other issue.
I object the inclusion of the issues if this is for Apink only and not for other group with similar case. Most users have agreed for some of the issue to be removed. One the consideration is to show fairness. Many users in this discussion are an active contributor for other kpop artist's page, who've also experienced the same (or worse) accusation repeatedly (I've pointed out the case examples above). That's why I cannot help but notice how Apink are treated differently. Why keep those artist page free from this kind of issue, but insisted on their inclusion on Apink page? I'm not asking for a special treatment for Apink, I'm merely asking for equal treatment. If the same treatment are used for all Kpop artist just like Karst suggested, I will not have any objection.--Sonflower0210 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You know what Sonflower0210, I wish I can help you, but I think it's a bit more "unique" for A Pink because they were accused not only once, but three times. Either the company or a member herself made a response to two of them, and the remaining issue, they were being accused by the choreographer himself. If there were no responses to them at all, like in those other cases you mentioned, then it would be easier to argue for their removal (because they were merely being accused by netizens with no concrete proof). And even with the clarifications from the company/member, these three issues are still somewhat blurry, we still don't know whether they are really plagiarisms or not. For the other cases, either there was no response to them or for Shinee and GG's CF song, the agency went on and clarified that those songs are rightly bought, so we can't really say they are plagiarism any longer. [I do wish I can help you] I still stand my ground for removing the first issue though, that is my compromise, but obviously I can't be the one deciding. And for fairness, someone needs to write up the "Someday" plagiarism on IU and Park Jin-young's pages because if that issue is not mentioned on those 2 artists' pages then the three issues that we are discussing can't be here either [This is what I can argue for].--TerryAlex (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If you read other artists' pages, it's the same case, though not all. If I remember correctly, Crayon Pop also had a section even just for other controversies and one of the users here contributed a lot in it, but now those were incorporated into the article. Other artists have such issues in their articles, so with the removal of A Pink's section, they're practically in the same boat so I don't understand what you want unless it's just to make it 'fair' to A Pink you want us to edit all of them immediately. Like @TerryAlex: said, someone will edit it. Personally I participated in this discussion because User:Keaclamviectot had been trying to control the A Pink pages and had been editing them without reason. I support including IU's/JYP's issue regarding the plagiarism accusation. (A mention on IU's page and more on JYP's page probably since he was the one sued) If a discussion opens up about it, I will participate in it. Please understand it's not because of favoring other artists or targeting A Pink. Most users here have contributed to A Pink pages in the past and it's not just this issue we concern ourselves with. Lonedirewolf 04:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sonflower0210:, I doubt anyone is actually prejudiced against Apink. I'm not a K-pop expert, so I wasn't even aware of all the accusations you listed. Most of my edits have been cleanup/copyediting, but I did a significant amount of editing on Crayon Pop, which had a criticism section until today when I incorporated the issues into the article. Like Lonedirewolf, I mostly participated in this discussion because of Keaclamviectot's behavior. @TerryAlex: @Lonedirewolf: I added the plagiarism issue to IU (singer) and Park Jin-young, if you want to take a look. --Random86 (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've seen it. Good job on both pages, @Random86:. Lonedirewolf 04:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad we could have reached a consensus on this matter and have implemented Random86's draft onto there profile page :)--StrifeRaider (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Random86: Thank you for your help for removing the section.
@TerryAlex: Apink is not a "unique" case. IU, SNSD and iKon are all accused of 3 similar accusation. Also, I don't understand why the absent of clarification from agency can be considered as case closed and plagiarism didn't happened? Also for shinee's case, SM stated they never bought the copyrights. It just the same as Apink cases, all of them have been accused by netizens without any concrete proof and they haven't been found guilty of any plagiarism.
Therefore, I agree with your solution that we need to set a standard and avoid this kind of accusation by anonymous "netizens", inclusion can be made if those accusation are followed up by real accusation or lawsuit from the copyright owner. E.g. IU - Someday. That is why, I still stand for removal of first and third issues. Not only for Apink page, but for all similar cases that only based on netizen accusation.
@Lonedirewolf:What i meant by fairness is we need to set the same standard for cases like this. If this discussion result in inclusion of the issues, then it means that we can agreed to use this as example for treating similar issues for other kpop artist.
This is some of the case i've mentioned above, For those who agreed on the inclusion of issues, I would like to ask your opinion, are you also agree for this plagiarism issues to be included on the artist page?
- IU -> Beside Someday, Red Shoes [28] and Soegyeokdong [29] also accused of plagiarism-> Agency denied both accusation
- Red Velvet -> Group Name [30] Logo plagiarism[31]
- Ikon (a.k.a Team B) -> 3 choreographer accused them of using their choreo without their permission [32][33][34]-no comment from YG
- Shinee - "Dream Girl" Song [35] - SM denied accusation
- SNSD - "The Boys" Song [36] [37], no comment from SM
- SNSD - Album cover [38] [39], no comment from SM --Sonflower0210 (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sonflower0210:, you might need to re-read my reply earlier. When I said A Pink case is "unique", I meant it's because both the company and the member herself have made a response regarding 2 of the issues. If they had not responded at all, then we can clearly argue that those 2 issues were trivial because they were merely accused by netizens without any proofs. However, because they have made those responses, those responses are the reason why the issues turned notable enough to be included. And even with them, we still cannot clearly verify that there was no plagiarism involved [Eunji's statement of "similarity between girl groups" is good, but it cannot verify that there was definitely no plagiarism]; therefore, even though I really want to help you, but I still cannot find a good argument to persuade other editors to get A Pink out of this.

In other cases, even though SNSD might have been accused three times, they did not respond to 2 of the issues, and the CF song was clarified to be copyrighted-ly bought. Same with Shinee, SM made this statement: "The song 'Dream Girl' was produced by famous producer Shin Hyuk and his production team, Joombas Music Factory. We did not buy any copyright or plagiarize anyone's songs. It is solely and fully an original SM song." Because of that, we cannot say that those two songs were plagiarism anymore. For the choreography issue, I stated before that it's more like a YG problem rather than the boy-groups themselves, but it's up to other editors to discuss how important this issue is. For Red Velvet's name, it seems like they have reached an agreement amicably, so I don't think we can call it a plagiarism. I'm not familiar with the logo issue nor IU's cases, so someone might want to comment on those. To conclude, my general stand is: If the issues are trivial, no proof, or already cleared, then there is no point to mention them.

A Pink fans, I hope you see my good intention here. If I can go back in time and find a good argument for A Pink, believe me I would, I genuinely think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so I don't like to see every single trivial matter to be included on here either, but at this point in time, I don't think I can come up with a good argument to persuade other editors.

PS: I tend to be really long with my thoughts, I hope fellow editors don't get annoyed with me. I apologize.--TerryAlex (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


@TerryAlex: I'm interested in what you have to say and you don't need to apologize. @Sonflower0210: It does seem like there should be a clearer standard for what kinds of accusations should be included on Wikipedia. Some questions for everyone:

  1. Does the number of similar accusations make a difference?
  2. Does it make a difference if the group/company makes a statement denying the allegations? Does this make it more notable?
  3. Does the level of news coverage make a difference?
  4. If an identifiable person (songwriter, choreographer, etc.) makes the accusation, should it be included? Does it make a difference if it is resolved amicably? (e.g. Red Velvet's name)

For points 1-2 I'm now thinking that accusations from anonymous netizens shouldn't be included (even if the group/company etc. responds) unless it can demonstrated that the accusations had a negative impact. I think this is the simplest solution, but I welcome other opinions. In Apink's case, that would result in issues 1 and 3 being removed. I also think maybe the second issue should be moved to Cube Entertainment, since they were the ones being addressed, not Apink. The issue with Ikon's choreography should definitely be included on iKON and/or YG Entertainment. --Random86 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Random86:"...unless it can demonstrated that the accusations had a negative impact": Yes, exactly my thought, I could not find the right word earlier. Important issues, like lawsuits, definitely have to be mentioned. But for every other trivial, non-notable matters, they should not be on here.
I originally proposed that anything that was accused by netizens (in most cases) should not be included, so if we don't mind and this would make A Pink fans happy, then issue 1 and 3 can be taken out. I'm fine with that. The only question is issue 2. Should it still have a mention on A Pink's page or should it be moved to A Cube's page entirely? To be honest, at this point in time, I do feel sorry for A Pink if these issues have to stay on their page, but I read some previous comments and could not come up with a good argument to say otherwise.
For your first question , I guess every case is different, but let's say a group is being accused multiple times for the same issue, then it would become more serious, ex: a group is being accused of plagiarizing 4, 5 songs and there were no clarifications, then that would be alarming. The hard line to draw is, ex: in A Pink's case, they were being accused but for different issues, and they aren't 100% liable for those accusations either. For the second question, I would say yes, for me, those statements from SM clearly cleared the issues because copyrighted songs are not "jokes". If serious plagiarism is involved, then they can be sued like JYP. But for A Pink's teaser pictures, it's still kind of hard to say, so that is why I used the word "blurry" earlier [How I wish A Cube hadn't responded at all]. For the third question, no, media coverage can blow trivial matters way out of proportion. Question four is up for discussion, but I would say it depends on how negative the impact is as well. For Red Velvet, it was not really a plagiarism issue to begin with, the original band did not trademark their name in the first place.--TerryAlex (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@TerryAlex: My thoughts are more in line with your original proposal now. However, I'm not sure being accused multiple times should make a difference. If there are multiple accusations with no response, it could just mean the company didn't think it was serious enough to respond to. I personally think the vast majority of plagiarism accusations are ridiculous. To clarify, are you saying that if the issue was cleared, you don't think it needs to be included on Wikipedia? --Random86 (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
This might be the final suggestion from me, I propose moving the issues to NoNoNo's article and the album's article since it's related to them for those who still want to include the issue. Lonedirewolf 05:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Random86: You can be right about the company thinking they are not important issues, like how SM made no statements at all. See, that is why most accusations really have no base. And for your question, if an issue has been cleared, we cannot say that it is controversial nor plagiarized any longer, can we?--TerryAlex (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@TerryAlex: I guess I'm a little confused here. Above, you said, "If they had not responded at all, then we can clearly argue that those 2 issues were trivial because they were merely accused by netizens without any proofs. However, because they have made those responses, those responses are the reason why the issues turned notable enough to be included." If that was the case, then all accusations that received a response could be included, including Shinee's "Dream Girl". But, then I thought you were saying if an issue was cleared (by the accusation being denied), then it shouldn't be included. You also said your general stand was if there is no proof, there is no point to mention them. I think the only way there can be proof of plagiarism is if the law gets involved.--Random86 (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I think in general it's best to avoid the word plagiarism as much as possible unless you have clear proof it happened.--StrifeRaider (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Random86: Ah, it seems like I'm saying something differently every time, aren't I? Sorry to confuse you. I was trying to explain to Sonflower0210 and referred to our previous comments regarding A Pink and how the responses turned the issues notable, so I couldn't argue otherwise; but now that I think you understand where my position is, I can definitely say that anything that is non-controversial or has no negative impact, I don't find it necessary to be on here. :) Yes, and 90% of the time, the only legit plagiarism is the one involving lawsuits. Otherwise, not only the artist's reputation get scarred for no reason, but it also makes their fans unhappy. Now that we go through this long discussion, I have come to realize this. Is that still confusing? I don't know how to explain myself well.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Random86: Looking at the list of "alleged plagiarism" now, there are only three items that popped out of me: 1. "Someday" lawsuit 2. YG choreography plagiarism 3. A Pink's 2nd issue. I think this long discussion that we are having is really helpful.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Random86: to answer your question, I don't think the number of accusation and agency responds are matter. For me, what matters is who made those accusation? If it made by anonymous netizen then it's not credible. If the songwriter/copyright owner made the accusation then it's a real accusation so it's more credible.
For cases that have been resolved, i don't think it makes any difference because it doesn't change the fact that the accusation happened. But we should say that it has been resolved and both party have come to agreement.
So what kind plagiarism issues should be included in wiki?
1. Proven Plagiarism case only
2. Proven Plagiarism and Plagiarism Accusation made by copyright owner
3. Proven Plagiarism and All Plagiarism Accusation
To conclude, in my opinion all accusation that come from anonymous netizens should be avoided. I'm more towards inclusion of proven plagiarism issues only, but I can accept inclusion of plagiarism accusation if it's come from copyright owners. --Sonflower0210 (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple inputs help us to see the bigger picture here. Reopening this issue is quite helpful because I had to change my thoughts a few times. It can definitely set an example for future cases. For Sonflower0210's question, I say only proven plagiarism and (maybe some?) plagiarism accusations by copyright owner.

So as of now, I think we can agree on these two things:

Any accusation:

1. that has a negative impact such as proven plagiarism (lawsuits) must be mentioned

2. that was started by netizens, even with some sort of responses, can be omitted.

The discussion for now is what should we do with the accusations that were started by the copyright owner themselves:

1. with some responses

2. with no responses

3. no difference, we should just include them all

For cases that have been resolved, i don't think it makes any difference because it doesn't change the fact that the accusation happened. But we should say that it has been resolved and both party have come to agreement. Are you talking about the Red Velvet's name? that was originally not a plagiarism though. I don't see any other thing on our list that would apply to this at this moment. Everything else was pretty much started by the netizens. So I still see only three items that stood out to me: 1. someday lawsuit (which we have taken care of) 2. YG choreography 3. A Pink's choreography. --TerryAlex (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: I agree that this discussion has been very helpful, and I understand what you were saying now. It looks like we (inc. Sonflower0210 and StrifeRaider) are in agreement that netizen accusations shouldn't be included unless there is a negative impact. Lawsuits should obviously be mentioned. For accusations by copyright owners, I don't think it should make a difference if there was a response or not, and there isn't a good reason to say they shouldn't be included. However, all the choreographers complained to the entertainment company, not the artist. So it seems like maybe it should be included on the company's pages instead (unless it negatively affects the artist). --Random86 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@TerryAlex: For that "resolved plagiarism case", I was referring to Random86's question no 4, noone in particular. About RV case,I agree that it's more of name controversy rather than plagiarism case so I think it's for another discussion. Agree, those 3 cases fit the criteria we've agreed on. I also don't think it makes any difference if there's a response or not from the company.
@Random86: For this sentence "netizen accusations shouldn't be included unless there is a negative impact". I'm not quite get this sentence, What kind of negative impacts are you referring to? --Sonflower0210 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sonflower0210: negative impact: if netizens accusations somehow lead to lawsuits (and the like); otherwise, all those cases should be omitted. I agree with moving the choreography issues into the company's articles.--TerryAlex (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sonflower0210: When I wrote that, I was thinking of Crayon Pop's Ilbe controversy. It was started by netizens, and eventually resulted in loss of endorsements and cancellation of scheduled events, due to criticism by the public. I don't know if any other similar situations have occurred, but I was thinking this was more serious. --Random86 (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I think everything with multiple reliable sources shouldn't be removed. After all, Wikipedia is meant meant to provide as much information as possible. I'm sorry, but I think it should stay. (And by the way, some of these events may even have a positive impact. Cause, for example, publications about Crayon Pop copying Momoiro Clover Z may have made a considerable amount of people in Japan notice the group.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: I don't think Wikipedia is meant provide as much information as possible, because not everything is notable enough to be included. There is no proof that Crayon Pop's plagiarism accusations had a positive impact, so that can't be a reason to include them.
I read through WP:BLP again and I think WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies. It says, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article" and "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." I've come to think that anonymous accusations aren't noteworthy or relevant unless it can demonstrated that they had some of kind of impact (whether positive or negative).
Although there are multiple reliable sources for Crayon Pop's plagiarism accusations, it was only a controversy on the internet and there is no proof that it impacted them at all. In contrast, the Ilbe controversy was much bigger and actually had an impact. In Apink's case, none of the issues are well-documented IMO. I think the only issue that possibly has multiple reliable third-party sources is the "NoNoNo" issue (one source talks about it directly, and the other two allude to it). --Random86 (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I the Crayon Pop case, there are "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident" just like rule you cited says. It was a major deal in Japan, and the group was accused of copying Momoiro Clover Z on multiple accounts (at least at two), therefore I object to removing the part. It's relevant and "well-documented" and some major Japanese and Korean media wrote about it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Something to think about: It's not as if this is a question of real plagiarism. Momoiro Clover Z doesn't own a copyright on helmets, tracksuits, nametags, Christmas tree dresses, etc. --Random86 (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You are talking like a fan. :-)
It's not a question of plagiarism at all for me. I don't care. They can copy whatever they like (if you ask me), but if multiple reliable sources notice something and create a buzz about it, I want Wikipedia to document it. (And you can call it whatever you like, too. As far as I can remember, I initially wrote something about "copying". My objective is not to accuse anyone. It happened, it was a big deal as proved by multiple reliable sources, Wikipedia should therefore mention it.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of these cases are not plagiarism. Just "controversies". Therefore the proposed rules about listing "proven plagiarism cases only" and only "proven plagiarism and plagiarism accusations made by copyright owner" won't work. I would even say the rule is a very good trick to delete all mention of all possible controversies related to copying some other artist from the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Random86:@TerryAlex: I agree with both of you. if there is great damage like that, then it's become an important issue. I remember something like this happened to Tablo and T-ara.
Hi@Moscow Connection:, We are trying to limit our discussion to "alleged plagiarism" here not for all controversies. All of the cases we mentioned above are related to plagiarism accusation. Can you tell us which case do you think not related to plagiarism accusation? The only thing I'm still not sure is if Apink and YG choreography cover are plagiarism issue. But for this particular case we already have a consensus to put this issue and I don't have problem with how Random86 wrote that case because it describe the case as is.
As for Crayon Pop case, I think it's more of controversy and not plagiarism. Therefore, it should be discussed in a "controversy" section and not here since the topic for this discussion is for "alleged plagiarism". While I personally opposed to include all unfounded rumours that started from netizens, I think it's for another discussion and for now we are only trying to decide on specifically on the topic of "plagiarism accusation".
Moreover, I don't think Wikipedia meant to provide as much possible information as it says here WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I don't think wikipedia need to documented all rumours and hearsay, otherwise it will become a tabloid journalism instead. I referred to this wiki policies:
WP:QUESTIONABLE - Questionable sources - "rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions".
WP:BLPSOURCES - "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism"
WP:BLPGOSSIP - "Avoid gossip and feedback loops"; "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." --Sonflower0210 (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm here because of Crayon Pop. :-) As for A Pink, I will have to look at it later, as I'm not familiar with what happened. What I can say now is that a major section titled "Alleged plagiarism" doesn't look right. I looked at how the article was... "History" , "Alleged plagiarism", "Members". The section made it look like "plagiarism" was an important part of the group's career, like the group's whole career was based on "plagiarizing" other artists, which is certainly not true. (Right now, without yet checking the sources, I think the stuff can be mentioned, but it should be toned down, and the word "plagiarism" should be avoided if possible. The controversy about the teasers for Pink Luv looks like a major deal cause the group's agency commented and apologized. I think something like that should stay, but should be toned down.)
The section said "They once again faced plagiarism accusations later in November when netizens". — Too dramatic. It really sounded like someone was accusing A Pink of plagiarizing everything they see. That kind of tone was surely not acceptable and I understand why someone raised the question. But why not mention it among other controversies if it was a major scandal and even the agency apologized? (I will look at the sources later.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, controversies are an important part of K-pop. We can't ignore it. If Korean K-pop fans and Korean media are so dramatic, Wikipedia K-pop articles should reflect it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection:@Random86:@Sonflower0210: I disagree that all controversies should stay. Only notable ones should. K-pop netizens are very dramatic and ridiculous. I originally voted for this section to stay on this page, but now I have come to realize that this would just damage any particular artist's reputation for no reason. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for every trivial matter to be on here. 10, 20 years from now, when a random reader reads a K-pop article, how do we want that particular artist to be remembered as? Have we done a good job illustrating that artist's overall "yet complete" career? The important question is their legacy, what do they leave behind? Not all those trivial matters. The problem with K-pop articles is that right now there are already way too many details that should not have been on Wikipedia in the first place, but not enough legacy-matters explained, but I won't go to that because that is for a separate discussion. It's the editors' jobs to document well those important accomplishment/failures that any particular artist has done. When I say "failures", I don't mean to include every single controversy on here, but lawsuits, or loss of endorsement deals due to public criticism (in the Crayon Pop's case) and stuff like that have negative impact on that artist, so obviously, they should be documented, but for everything else, there is just simply no proofs. I can be an anti-fan of some artist out there, and can get a whole bunch of my friends to go online and post false information about that artist. And that false information get caught by the media so it gets publicized to the public. Is it fair to document it on Wikipedia? No, let me repeat, it would just damage that artist's reputation for no reason. The problem with Internet is that it makes communication way too convenient and false information just spreads easily.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about fan forums, etc. But if something has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, it's notable. (And think about it differently. Something happened, it's a widely known fact, but Wikipedia won't have it because some fans don't want it to. It will just make Wikipedia a bad source of information. And as I said, all these controversies is just an integral part of K-pop.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fanpage. This is the problem with a lot of K-pop articles' mentality. Just because it gets publicized to the public, does not make it notable. It depends on where the original source comes from, and how notable is that source.--TerryAlex (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You are saying this on the talk page of an article that actuallty reads like a fan page. "In celebration of their third anniversary, A Pink held their second fan meeting successfully on June 14.". "Successfully". :) Just look at it, it is just a list of unconnected events. (To think about it, the "Alleged plagiarism" section was the only attempt at writing an analytical part. Just kidding, it didn't look right having a section on plagiarism.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Surely. We just should look at the sources for an event and if the sources are reliable, it should stay in the article. I think it's incorrect to invent a rule designed specifically to get rid of some aspect of K-pop. K-pop artists are often accused of copying something. And now we see an attempt to completely ban information about it from Wikipedia. If A Pink fans don't like something that is not notable, they can always do it cause a non-notable event won't have reliable sources. There's no need for a special rule to do it. ---Moscow Connection (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection:@Random86:@Sonflower0210: If you want to create a separate Wikipedia article that talks about the problem with K-pop artists often being accused of stuff, that is a different issue. But Kpop artists' reputations should not be damaged for no reason unless there is a severe evidence that says so. Netizens are not notable sources. And for your other question, I'm not an A Pink fan, so you might want to talk about that issue with Sonflower0210 (and some other editors), to have the general content on their page restructured, that is not my concern. I did cleaned out a lot of unnecessary stuff on their page earlier, but I'm not a fan so I couldn't say much about that and couldn't just come in and delete everything. And as you pointed out, this is why I'm saying that a lot of K pop articles are having this problem. I am only concerned about this discussion that we are having. I don't want to repeat, but Wikipedia is not a fanpage.--TerryAlex (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've actually thought about this (about creating a page like this). But I need some articles that talk in general about the topic. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I was talking about this [40]. The second part that was removed. Multiple reliable sources like Joongang Ilbo, Cyzo Woman, MBN, Naver, Nate News. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, just because it gets publicized to the public does not make that issue becomes notable. I'm not a Crayon Pop's fan either, so I'm not familiar with them, but I really cannot see anything so controversial about Chrome Entertainment stop receiving fan gifts that they have to get a backlash for it. Okay, they might have wanted to consult with the fans first, but it's still not a big deal. And where is the proof for other accusations? Have they even been proven? I can be an anti-fan and make up a whole bunch of things, Naver and Newsen happen to publicize them, where is the proof?--TerryAlex (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Moscow Connection:Why come to Apink talk page for Crayon Pop though XD? How about create a new section on Crayon Pop talk page to discuss about them? :). You already have the topic you want to talked about. Also if it was previously deleted, you can mention the user who deleted them so you can have the discussion about that topic.
About Apink case, The things you mentioned above is actually not existed anymore. Random86 had made quite a few adjustment to original article and we've agreed to use it temporarily until we reached consensus on other issue. To have better understanding on our discussion, I think you need to read our discussion from the beginning since we have already discussed many aspects and we have finally reached certain degree of agreement. So I don't think it's possible and efficient to repeat the same discussion all over again :).
@Moscow Connection: "It will just make Wikipedia a bad source of information." What we are trying to do here is exactly the opposite. We are trying to avoid wiki to become a place with bad source of information that consist of rumours, gossip and hearsay.
About all controversies, I agree with TerryAlex's point above and because it's against wiki policy I've mentioned on my previous reply. Moreover, I thought this discussion is to discussed "alleged plagiarism" issues not all kpop controversies. What do you think @Random86: and @TerryAlex:, Do you guys think it's better to have separate discussion or do you want it to be discuss together here? I prefer to have separate discussion. --Sonflower0210 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Controversies/Plagiarism more or less overlap with one another, so we don't need a separate discussion. I stated my reasons and I think I'm clear enough.--TerryAlex (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: I just checked your link and the Crayon pop case. Now I'm understand why you are here to discuss this. If i'm not mistaken, are you talking about 2 cases that was deleted? The costume and the gift? I agree for the deletion for case no 1, because it's just like our discussion above. @Random86: However I don't understand how case no 2 related to this discussion. It's a controversy because of something that agency did do officially. It's a fact that the agency did that and it created controversy. It's different with case no 1, when it was all accusation from anonymous netizen and there are no proof of the accusation. --Sonflower0210 (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sonflower0210: Moscow Connection disagrees with the removal of the two accusations of Crayon Pop copying Momoiro Clover Z. Also, I agree with TerryAlex that we don't need a separate discussion for Crayon Pop because it is related. --Random86 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: We certainly aren't trying to come up with a trick for removing controversial information from K-pop pages. I was trying to come up with a simple solution for how to deal with controversies, in particular, netizen controversies. I think the main issue is, how do we determine if something is notable or "noteworthy and relevant" (to quote the Wiki guideline)? I thought the rules we agreed on above was a simple solution. Another simple solution would be to include everything that has multiple reliable sources, no matter what it is. Despite what you might think, I'm not trying to remove information because I'm a fan. If you remember, I was the one who added most of the text about Crayon Pop's controversies. I just wanted some guidelines that could be applied to all K-pop pages so we don't have to have this same discussion over and over. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. --Random86 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"Another simple solution would be to include everything that has multiple reliable sources, no matter what it is.": No, this would still be very unfair though.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, that is Moscow Connection's position. --Random86 (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The more popularity you have, the more media coverage you probably are going to get, I already can imagine that, it's still very unfair and cannot paint the right picture.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@TerryAlex: I am thinking of restoring the content on Crayon Pop since Moscow Connection disagrees, and my removing it could have been premature. I haven't been an active editor on Wikipedia for very long and I don't know what to do next. @Dr.K.: seemed to think we had consensus before, but since Moscow Connection disagrees I don't think we do now? (Also, I did find more reliable sources for Apink's NoNoNo and teaser image controversies, so they do have multiple reliable sources) --Random86 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dr.K.:@Random86:, I don't know what you think Dr.K, but I think Random86's removal on Crayon Pop is reasonable.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: I agree with you. @Random86:, despite your doubts regarding how long you have been actively editing, I find that your opinions are sound and your grasp of policy is up to date. I also agree with your approach and that of TerryAlex. Because of that, I will be content with whatever you decide. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @TerryAlex: I agree this will be to unfair of the victims of those rumors. Unfounded rumour from Korean Netizens had hurt a lot of innocent people and for wiki to endorsed it by including those rumors will allow those people to continue hurt the victim and tainted their reputation. It is very wrong.
@Moscow Connection: For the controversies that we are trying to avoid to be put it here are the one that come from "anonymous netizens". It might get picked up and reported as "Some netizen's pointed out.." by some tabloid because it's "controversial" for the sake of clickbait. It can't be count as reliable source. WP:BLPSOURCES
We want to avoid those kind of baseless rumour. However if, the rumour then resulted in a lawsuit or accusation from the copyright owner then we've agreed to include them. For example, APink choreography. We've decided to include it in because the choreographer was the one who complained on how she's not credited.
Here's an example: Some anonymous netizens started a rumour that celebrity A dating married man. There are no proof whatsoever. Some tabloid/newssite reported the rumour. Agency denied the accusation as groundless. Do you think this kind of rumour should be put on wiki? Why? I don't think wikipedia need to documented all rumours and hearsay, otherwise it will become a tabloid journalism instead.
@TerryAlex:@Random86: For controversies that based on rumours by anonymous netizens, Isn't it against these wiki policies?
WP:QUESTIONABLE - Questionable sources - "rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions".
WP:BLPSOURCES - "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism"
WP:BLPGOSSIP - "Avoid gossip and feedback loops"; "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources."--Sonflower0210 (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sonflower0210: WP:BLPSOURCES does not apply because the sources are not tabloid journalism. Some of the sources are reputable newspapers like The Chosun Ilbo, The Dong-a Ilbo, and The Herald Business. --Random86 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Random86: The point is though, the original source still comes from the netizens and that is what makes it unfair, because they can just say anything.--TerryAlex (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, but since Sonflower0210 keeps posting that, I thought I would clarify that the sources are not tabloid journalism. The original source is still anonymous though, so I think WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:QUESTIONABLE may apply. --Random86 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please use Crayon Pop's talk page for further discussion on the topic as this talk page is for this article, not a discussion on an general issue per WP:TALK#USE. Thank you. Rockysmile11 (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Holy moly. Thanks, Moscow Connection, for the invitation. I can't, in this jungle, find Dr.K.'s comments (with his weird signature), so I can't even say "what he said". I saw, above, "all rumour that start from netizens should be omitted"--that's nonsense. There are really only two things at stake here, and both of them are problematic given the nature of K-pop articles.

    First, only content from reliable sources should be included (WP:RS), especially in BLPs (WP:BLP). (Whether these persons--I assume they are persons, not just dolls in dresses--wrote the song or not is to some extent immaterial, at least for me.) Such allegations require strong sourcing. The problem is, every single fart a K-pop artist makes is written up, and K-pop editors here include all of that material. So by having lowered the bar you all (most of you) have made it very difficult to have any kind of standard on what's reliable or not--once you incorporate the material from the publicity mill (allkpop, nate, soompi, koreaboo, and all those other fan/PR sites) you have no rationale in leaving any of it out. You made your bed and now you have to lie in it. In other words, even if the sourcing for this incident (or these incidents) is total crap, it doesn't matter, since most of the sourcing in these articles is crap.

    The same applies to the other relevant policy, WP:UNDUE, which suggests that appropriate weight be given to material in relation to the rest of the article. There again, K-pop editors have done a terrible job upholding encyclopedic standards: you include not just every single fart (and every single variant spelling of someone's name), but even every single announcement of a video of a teaser of a performance in a mall of a comeback of a fart--"In early November, teaser images for the group's upcoming album were released". These very articles prove that everything is deemed notable (and don't tell me I'm wrong: I've been looking at the swamp of trivial factoids spun out into dozens of articles on We Got Married, a TV show of no consequence with K-pop performers of no consequence forming couples of no consequence). Well, that's fine: you all wanted fan pages, you got them. Problem is, again, you have no possible basis for excluding anything, since you leave everything in as a matter of course, claiming "it's all important".

    Good luck. When the dust settles I'll be glad to have a look at the article, at which point I will enforce our BLP policy, and it is likely that I will simply remove the charges as "unreliably sourced". The only thing I wish to say here is, really, look at this discussion. A million people, a million comments, on a minor issue--you all discuss stuff in the exact same way you write these articles: all-inclusively, and no one can see the forest for the trees. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Dr.K.'s comment is a little above yours, and he agreed with TerryAlex and I. However, I totally see your point about the current state of K-pop articles and their general lack of reliable sources. --Random86 (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
By banning criticism from articles you are making everyone see the promotional bias of articles you write. I love K-pop, but even I have started questioning the validity of K-pop-related content in Wikipedia after seeing all this.
As I've already said, it's especially shocking to read the praises in the "Bar Bar Bar" article, while multiple Japanese sources reported on how the whole Internet ridiculed the group for "ripping off" Momoiro Clover Z. And there was a response from the group/their company. And these are actual reliable sources for the turmoil [41], [42], [43], not user-generated websites like Allkpop. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources for birthdates

@Drmies: I had a look at WP:BLPSPS and it says, "Never use self-published sources...as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". WP:DOB says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." Would you mind explaining how the group's official website doesn't qualify? Thanks. --Random86 (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • We need to look at this in context, which is that of the exhaustive lists of "member information" in K-pop articles, where normal musicians have a name and an instrument listed. These lists feature, at the minimum, a stage name, a real name (often piped), two or three transcriptions, a date of birth, and frequently blood type, favorite color, and stage position. My position is that none of this is relevant at all. If you think that a date of birth is relevant in the "list of members" then you might well be an ageist.

    =More to the point, date of birth in K-pop seems to be a valuable commodity, and I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the information from the entertainment agency that owns these singers is accurate at all. Why would it be? There's an obvious value to the performers' youth. I would put more stock in, for instance, someone's own website. I think you underestimate to which extent "the group's official website" is simply a part of the marketing mechanism. But that's beside the more basic point, nowhere in Wikipedia do lists of members list dates of birth. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Offtopic, but @Drmies:, I know Allkpop is not a reliable source to use, but you have to take the time difference between South Korea and the US into consideration here https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=A_Pink&diff=prev&oldid=638992954 .--TerryAlex (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
TerryAlex, the article linked is dated 3 July; I should have said "accessed 7 July". So, in fact, that article came out 5 days before the release. To indicate what kind of sourcing allkpop gives us, this is the entire text of the article: "A Pink's Eunji and Huh Gak are hinting at their second duet project with a video teaser for 'Break Up To Make Up' today!

The two first promoted together for "Short Hair" last year, and A Cube Entertainment has announced that they'll be working together for the project 'A Cube for Season #Sky Blue'." Besides not containing information on any chart topping, a "source" like that is simply not a source, since it seems to merely mimic a two-sentence press release. And that actually is not off-topic: the more I look at allkpop, the more I am convinced it cannot be used for sourcing BLPs and other articles. Thanks for pointing this out, Drmies (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Drmies Sorry, I was only looking at your summary edit, but did not check the actual source, but please keep in mind that there is a difference between Korea and US though, so don't be surprised if you see some articles that was time stamped July 7, but it mentioned July 8 in the article instead.--TerryAlex (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, have you ever seen Allkpop's disclaimer? Here it is: "allkpop is a celebrity gossip site which publishes rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts. Information on this site may or may not be true and allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims." If I had my way, all future edits with Allkpop as the only source would be reverted. --Random86 (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Random86 about this. Also, about dates, it is more important to give the date of publication than the access date. I don't think you really need an access date unless you access the article months or years after it is published. If an article is published on Feb.1 and accessed on Feb. 4, I think you only need the publication date. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apink/Archive_1&oldid=1136292655"