Talk:Roy Kim

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Pop music

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Korea Low‑importance

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

Despite

“ Despite the investigation, the university granted an undergraduate degree to Kim.”

In the United States, rising seniors and the university sign a contract detailing the courses remaining to be taken and when those courses are taken. As he had taken his final exam, the contract was concluded and the awarding of his Diploma was set. Any arrests after that exam would not be applicable to any regulations set out in the student handbook (also considered a contract) detailing moral terpitude by undergraduates because he was no longer an under graduate, but an alumnus.

“Despite” is not the correct word. I would suggest:

“As Kim had already satisfied all requirements for graduation prior to investigation, the university granted his degree” Merrillguice (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relation with Burning sun

In the lead section, it is mentioned that Kim was only in the group chat with Jung, and Choi as a fishing group. In the citation, it is said that in that group chat, there was only conversation of fishing went on. This makes Kim innocent of being accused as member of the Burningsun. What he was accused of is a different crime.

Yet, the controversy section is ended as if he was found guilty of the crime of Burningsun. Some might get confused because there is a link to the article Burning Sun scandal. And no other mention about the case he had really been questioned of. --GyongminM (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GyongminM, I have edited the lead section to reflect this. @Serols has tried reverting my edits for no legitimate reason but as of now he is not disrupting the article. If he tries to vandalise the article again I will notify the administrators. Thanks. Sleptlapps (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C.Fred, would need a third opinion, could you please help. Sleptlapps has the deletion of an IP restored without recognizable reason - see the artikel history. The deleted part is provided with sources. I requested Sleptlapps to explain at the article talk page why he thinks that the part should be deleted. Result -> no explanation but again deleted. Can you please check, if that's ok, thanks. Regards --Serols (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already stated, if you were reading my responses, an explanation was provided in the edit summary. Do not make me repeat myself. Sleptlapps (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an explanation, that's only impertinent. --Serols (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your explanation @Serols: this information does NOT belong in the lead. Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia Manual of Editing before reverting edits you are unfamiliar with. Happy now? Sleptlapps (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sleptlapps please stay correct and factual -> this was your explanation .. this information does NOT belong in the introduction, see also the link In my comment above. In the introduction was not that, that's the point. I asked you to explain here why the deletion is justified, with specification of sources. What you write here is just your personal opinion, that does not correspond to the rules of Wikipedia. --Serols (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about, there was nothing wrong with my reasoning, you are just looking for a reason to antagonize me. Sleptlapps (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(third opinion requested in Special:Diff/1039758377) The main purpose of these edits seems to have been moving an allegation from the lead section to a separate "Controversy" section. In the same edit, the text was modified, and Serols' objection seems to be about this modification. An easy way to make the situation resolvable would have been making two edits instead, one moving the content, and another modifying it. Serols could then have reverted the content modification without restoring the section to the lead, where it – agreedly, clearly – does not belong. As I'm concerned that WP:BLPCRIME applies to the content and its wording/neutrality/verifiability was already disputed, I have removed it for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]