Talk:Illit

controversy about copycat accusations

The huge controversy about copycat accusations should be on the page and, since it is a prominent controversy, on lead as well.

I know that adding this would trigger an edit war so I am being considerate and refraining from doing this immediatelly. Let's see if we can draft it here first in a way that will not hurt anybody. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed that you intend to add information about Illit being accused of being a copycat. While I understand that discussions like this might generate interest, I believe this content should not be included for the following reasons:

Unproven Accusations: The allegations of Illit being a copycat have not been proven, and there has been no conclusion from the trial as of yet. Wikipedia’s guidelines emphasize the importance of verifiable, neutral, and reliable information. Including accusations that have not been substantiated would violate Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view and verifiability.

Potential Defamation: The group has already been involved in defamation claims related to these accusations, which underscores the sensitive nature of the issue. Adding unproven claims can potentially mislead readers and contribute to spreading misinformation, which conflicts with Wikipedia's commitment to providing reliable, accurate information.

Undue Weight: Wikipedia guidelines also caution against giving undue weight to controversial or unproven claims, especially when there are more significant, documented achievements for Illit that should take precedence. Including this information would skew the balance of the article, focusing on speculation rather than proven facts. 시월의여우비 (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

You are wrong in strictly all points.

1) Unproven accusation CAN be added to Wikipedia. Even for ongoing cases. As long as reliable sources are reporting on them, an accusation is still something that happened. You can find an ongoing summarization of conflict in basically any single page that had a controversy.

2) Sources CAN have a point of view. Wikipedia has to be WRITTEN without a point of view on its tone, which is different. You can read more about it here: WP:BIASED "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."

3) Sensitive issues CAN be added to Wikipedia. Remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."

4) Appropriate weight HAS TO BE GIVEN to all parties involved in a controversy. Which DOES NOT mean to not give any weight to everybody, which is censorship. This is what WP:WEIGHT states:

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."

In April 2024, Illit was publicly accused of plagiarism by New Jeans' executive producer Min Hee-Jin. Illit management refuted the allegations and filed a complaint for defamation.

It is just that simple. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I am tagging editors that could be interested in the addition before adding it in a new section "Controversy", I would personally avoid to add it on lead for the sake of peace.

@Btspurplegalaxy @Vacosea @HypeBoy @Symphidius @Paper9oll @Haukurth Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Replying directly to your initial comment and your pinging comment, I believed that you're referring to the various news reports on Illit copying NewJeans? I generally don't have any objections as long as the content is given balanced WP:WEIGHT however that doesn't means WP:COATRACKing the content with every single details. And no, this shouldn't be confused as attempting to apply censorship because not every single details are included, in fact, a few of the pinged editors here already agreed on such stance, i.e. COATRACKing, at Talk:NewJeans#removal of informations from body which is also pertaining to the entire "MHJ vs Hybe" dispute. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The green text is my proposition for this page. It is hardly full of details. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay ... then it's okay. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll add this and let others add more if they believe there is something that deserves the space. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not really significant enough to mention. Illit isn’t the first group to face plagiarism accusations, and such claims are fairly common in the industry. In this case, there’s no evidence that anything was actually copied, so I don’t think it worth adding. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 06:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there is no proof that there have been plagiarism, and there will probably never been. The relevance in my opinion is granted by the accusations coming from a veteran in the industry, not just a an internal gossip among fans, which instantly made it into an extremelly relevant social issue that touched upon Kpop in general, ownership of ideas, control inside a conglomerate and such. Well reported by sources. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of her status, unless the members themselves have done something, I don't think it's fair to include baseless accusations. They haven't done anything wrong, so I don't find it relevant or worthy of being considered content. We shouldn't make it a standard just because she's a veteran. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 07:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO this plagiarism accusations is slightly different given that this one is reported continously and attracting a lot of attentions (regardless of audiences) compared to the previous "fairly common in the industry" which died down within 1–3 days. Maybe, we should have a {{Further information}} hatnote in that section linking to just Hybe Corporation#Dispute with Min Hee-jin as this materials wasn't included currently (but that is for another day) at Min Hee-jin#Dispute with Hybe. As for whether it's worth a entire section, IMO is appropriate and acceptable to be moved to the Career section as done with NewJeans considering it's a relatively compact. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be better. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you want to proceed with it? Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Should be safe to proceed per BOLD. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer if you could do it. I'm not too sure how to format it accordingly. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the section with {{Further information}} hatnote for now. As for the moving, I still thinking how to squeeze it in given that currently the paragraph flow, where this 3 sentences is supposed to move into, is bridging about "Magnetic" and Super Real Me. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you somehow put it under a sub-heading and maybe add a little more about the issue? Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 09:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not catching and picturing what your proposal is about the sub-heading. Is something missing in the current information that requires expansion? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You mentioned the moving to make flow better, my suggestion was to have the plagiarism as its own sub-heading with a little over detail about what happened since you said there were only 3 sentences if that makes sense. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 09:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could move it. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 09:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy It is not up to me or you to decide if the accusations are baseless, and even if they were, the accusations and the fight around them are a very relevant social issue on their own.

The accusations had such an extreme social relevance that they got widely reported and even got mentioned on a national assembly audit. This is a clear and cut exemple of K-pop pages not having to conform to the promotional needs of an industry.

@Paper9oll A separate controversy section feels better to me for the simple reason that this doesn't fit well inside the chain of events of the release of albums. There will also be other reports for the trial, it would not help the writing. I would actually be of the same opinion on the NewJeans page if things develop further. Linking to the more broad Hybe/MinHeeJin conflict seems appropriate. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Deleting the records set by ILLIT

Hi. I'm a Korean who has been interested in the history. And I noticed the users, including @Paper9oll deleted the writing regarding to the records set by Illit. The writing was including the rare recordings Illit set which shows the impact of Illit in kpop history, and it was including the credible source which is the address of official Korean news regarding to kpop. Thus, I hope we can keep the content in ILLIT's wikipidea for following reasons. 1. Verifiability: The facts are backed by credible sources, including Billboard, the Japan Record Association, and major news outlets. Wikipedia requires verifiable and reliable references, and you’ve provided solid sources for each claim. 2. Notability: Illit has achieved significant milestones that indicate their importance in the music industry, such as setting records on major charts (Billboard, Spotify, Apple Music). These accomplishments help establish notability, a key criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. 3. Historical Context: By being the first girl group to reach certain achievements (e.g., debuting on the Billboard Hot 100 and Global 200 simultaneously, achieving a record for highest first-week album sales), Illit is making history in K-pop. This context adds value to Wikipedia's mission of documenting cultural moments. 4. Broader Relevance: Their global impact, such as dominating charts in multiple countries and platforms (Korea, Japan, the U.S.), and their success across various media formats (streaming, music shows, short-form videos), makes the group relevant to a wide audience beyond K-pop fans. This adds international relevance to Wikipedia’s content. 시월의여우비 (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Your writing is far from being neutral, it isn't just me having problems with your writing as @Btspurplegalaxy and @Nkon21 also similarly reverted your edits on the same grounds. I also don't see how your writing aligns with the standards expected on English Wikipedia, would suggest that you go read up on English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to address your concerns and clarify how my edits align with the guidelines:

1. Neutral Tone: My intention is to present verifiable facts rather than opinions. All the information I added is backed by reliable sources, including Billboard, the Japan Record Association, and major news outlets like Chosun and Newsis.("On April 21, 2024, the debut song "Magnetic" became the fastest girl group debut song to surpass 100 " ,for instance. )These achievements are objectively significant in the music industry. If any specific phrasing seems non-neutral, I'm happy to review and adjust it to ensure neutrality.

2. Verifiability and Notability: Wikipedia requires that content be verifiable and notable. Illit's achievements, such as being the first girl group to debut on the Billboard Hot 100 and Global 200 simultaneously, are historical and well-documented. I provided citations to ensure the information meets the verifiability standard, and the group's success is notable within the K-pop industry and beyond.

3. Reverting Edits: Initially, I mentioned the records taking the reference of Blackpink's wikipedia content. But as @Btspurplegalaxy and @Nkon21 reverted the edits, mentioning it isn't objective enough. So, even when I believed this was due to a misunderstanding of the tone rather than the factual accuracy of the content, I rephrased my writing, deleting every adjectives and just mentioning the facts which is made up of just Five Ws and One H. However, @paper9oll, you just deleted the new writing.

4. Alignment with Wikipedia Policies: I have carefully considered Wikipedia's guidelines, including those on neutral point of view, verifiability, and notability. I also referred to Wikipedia's policy on writing about living persons, ensuring that the content is factual and well-supported. If there are specific areas where you believe the writing does not align with these policies, I’d appreciate more detailed feedback so I can address them directly. (-시월의여우비 (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC))

national assembly audit

hello @Phibeatrice

I shortened you latest additions. As far as I can understand the company audit was for Hybe in general, for the accusations of inflation of sales and a general scrutiny into the Kpop market of these months. That's what I can get from the article and what I remember. Even though you could argue that those accusations impact Illit, refuting them withoout prior presenting them makes it harder to read in my opinion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Artistry and image

Hello, I am NelsonLee20042020. I hope to ponder and discuss why my edits in the section of ILLIT regarding their artistry and image were removed. To be honest, I followed the other articles of many other kpop groups, where they had similar edits like mine, and I tried my best to put forward as neutral as I can while highlighting their success, image and achievements. But somehow, by guidelines, they still did not meet the rules in the opinions of some editors. I do not wish to negatively assume it as a possible attempt to downplay their success as a rookie (those who follow Kpop might understand what I mean).

@LeoInWonderland, @Rain Forest, @RachelTensions. I hope to hear how to approach this issue. I am tempted to re-include the info I added so far but I do not wish for an edit war, and the current info we have here under this section feels like an inadequate acknowledgement of their influence, as a fan and editor. Hope to hear from other editors too on this matter. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hope I can receive a reply soon. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, it can probably be rephrased to make it flow better and be more interesting. Also, since you are interested in editing the page, some kind of brief and interesting explanation of their success in the lead is needed, especially regarding Magnetic. It is missing right now and I feel like it is a shame! Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)