Jump to content

Talk:Kim Hee-chul

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kim Hee-chul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Hee-chul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short lead section

[edit]

The lead is very short compared to the length of the article. Moreover, it only talks about his music career, with no information about his entertainment career. For example, Kim Jong-hyun, his article is about the same length, but the lead is long enough to summarize everything. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Tried adding more to the lead section. If you have a better idea or can help organize and fix if further, please do so. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 april 2020

[edit]

There is edit war on this article specially by a user and the others users need keep undo the edit made by him/her. dating info doesn't need to be included on personal life, please refer to Kang Daniel for the reference as he also date someone from the same group. Therefore to avoid the war, this request been made … Lucia kwon (talk) … 16:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to request page protection? The user in question is already autoconfirmed so that wouldn't prevent them from editing the article. Just write on their talk page explaining your reasoning for the reversion (which no one seems to have done yet) and invite them to follow WP:BRD and discuss on this talk page. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life section

[edit]
KEEP
7 removed and 5 keeps. There is no consensus and the results are almost equal. Per WP:NOCON: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is an edit war on this section and to stop that, this talk section is made to follow WP:BRD. I understand the concern of the person who insisting to put it there, i guess is to tell the info that Kim Hee-chul is taken and who is he dating. However, the dating info is not a permanent information that always in the end later will be delete when they break up. Is better to put the information on wikipedia that already permanent or has an official legal document such as marriage or divorce. I understand why they use Kang Daniel as example since he also dating someone that is also come from a same group as someone that Kim Hee-chul dating with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timing999 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timing999, it is nice that you have this opinion, however this is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies. The information in the personal life section is referenced and in my view is relevant to the article. Just because you feel that "the dating info is not a permanent information that always in the end later will be delete when they break up" does not mean you can unilaterally implement your personal views. If you do not like Wikipedia's current policies; feel free to change them. Until that point, the information (which is relevant, referenced, and neutral) should stay. Jack Frost (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timing999, Jack Frost, i actually agree with timing999. As in korea itself, idol dating news is sensitive and the idol itself is reluctant to talk about it. It not fully relevant so i believe to put an information when is permanent is more neutral than putting info that might will be deleted one day. If one day the person and his girlfriend is married, this dating info sure will put it back to strong it article. for now the most neutral way i believe is to not put the temporary information.Lucia kwon (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia kwon “idol dating news is sensitive” is not a valid argument per WP:CENSOR. The norm is to add such facts on the article as seen in almost all artists’ articles on Wikipedia, be it a Korean artist or western artist. It is well sourced and is a fact. See Sulli, Goo Hara, Hyuna, Park Shin-hye x Choi Tae-joon, Jung Eun-woo, and Shin Min-a x Kim Woo-bin, etc. What I don’t understand is that not one tried to blank the section on momo’s page, but here we have edit warring. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CherryPie94 it is a fact but is different, a western celebrity such as Brad Pitt that has known celebrity relations (including one he married) that extend his entire career and includes significant headlines is indeed relevant ("importance in context"), he talks about these relationships in Hollywood and his family. A Kpop star that dates another Kpop star with minimal news is not. They are allowed to date but they rarely talk about it. Meanwhile, you can see Korean celebrities with longer and more notable public relationships such as Lee Min-ho and Bae Suzy, not have it listed on either individuals pages, so why should it be any different in this case. In fact, relative unknown people policy would have us "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability". Editors are responsible for subjective contents, notability should be permanent and not temporary, i.e. if its notable that this relationship is mentioned, it should be listed there even after they break up, no point of deleting it afterwards, Wikipedia is not a reporting website for current events only. Actually i don’t know they will be have edit warring but is better to have conclusion on it matter.Lucia kwon (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CherryPie94 i got your point, but is like it said. Only having a news of confirmed dating it has no notability to the defining aspect of the subject in the article. If we talk about Sulli, Goo Hara, Hyuna dating news is very different, the dating news have a very importance context as it a reason of the malicious comments they received and the career change that have very big impact toward their life and entire career. The relationship between Kim Hee-chul and his respective couple here is purely trivial and not even fully relevant or notable to the subject in the article. Therefore i don’t think dating should be included for now.Timing999 (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timing999, Lucia kwon Seems like this is a much bigger issue than just Heechul's page. If you want to remove dating info from all Korean artist, we need to discuss this here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CherryPie94 it is, but for now let’s focus to this article. I don’t ask for all korean to remove the dating info even i wish they are. now i see this article having a war for this particular info and the one who keep revert the dating news is only one person it seem when the other want the info not to be there and so do i since this info is does not fully relevant and notable like i has state above and help by Lucia kwon , it’s obvious i will vote them. According to wikipedia when one person keep reverting one thing that others revert it back, that means she or he are repeatedly changing content back to how he or she think it should be. Looking at history i seen that other editors disagree so they revert the info from her or him, i also see that person has got twice of three-revert rule warning which mean only this person is so persistent to put it back. So i hope this reach a decision/consensus to resolve this issue and whether we should include the info or not.Timing999 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People date, this includes celebrities. In itself there is nothing notable about that. Unless there's something particularly notable or significant about their relationship I personally see no encyclopaedic reason why it should be included. For example, Hyuna and Dawn's relationship leading them to leave the company makes their relationship a significant point in their career, cyber bullying in Sulli and Choiza's relationship continued throughout their relationship and the media linked cyber bullying to her death, which would make the information relevant and notable. As another example, the length of a relationship, such as Seven and Park Han-byul's relationship lasting 12 years seems significant enough that it should be mentioned. If information is going to be added, but then a few months down the line would be removed if they split up, then there's no reason for it to be included in the first place. "Person A is dating person B" just seems purely trivial. Alex (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"As another example, the length of a relationship, such as Seven and Park Han-byul's relationship lasting 12 years seems significant enough that it should be mentioned," so how long should artist date, that their dating info can be added? ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No specific time frame, I mentioned it only because of the comments stating that the information should/could be removed if they broke up a few months down the line. If the information isn’t significant/notable enough that it would simply be removed if they broke up, then there is no reason for it to be in the article in the first place. Alex (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dating info has been on the page for 3 months now. And after all this time someone started consistently removing it and push unilaterally implement personal views. All of us don't have the power to decide what has a big impact on a person's lives and what is not. It's a significant part of a person's life that has become public knowledge and was officially confirmed by both parties. This information in the personal life section and corresponds purpose of this section. This information is neutral, referenced and relevant to the article. Statements like: “idol dating news is sensitive” and “the reason for it to be removed is also because to avoid it to be deleted if they break up” are irrational, biased, and weak. And if they break up, then we will remove it. It would take less time than all this argument here. This information in full compliance with Wikipedia's current policies has more refers to other pages where it included that the opposite. And it should stay as it was for the past 3 months. EchizenRema (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"if they break up, then we will remove it" except that is not how it should work. It if is included, it is included. If it is going to be something that is removed so easily because they break up then it shouldn’t be in the article in the first place. If a relationship isn’t notable to be included because they broke up, it wasn’t notable to be included in the first place.Alex (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the argument that others here were trying to push. Nobody gives us the right to judge how notable (or not) other people's personal relationships. Wу only can judge whether they're covered by multiple reliable sources. Whether a couple is married or not is inconsequential. The relationship is certainly official and has been confirmed by both parties. This information has multiple reliable sources, neutral, referenced and relevant. It fully corresponds with the purpose of this section and with Wikipedia's current policies. And it should be included and should stay AS it was for the past 3 mounts before someone started to push personal views and constantly removing it. EchizenRema (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors "judge" what is notable to be mentioned all the time. WP:ONUS - verifiable does not guarentee inclusion. All page edits must be considered in regards to the context they provide. Reliable sources announced it... and then it happens. If it's more than one sentence, it could be notable. Otherwise, I think dating news isn't notable - "celebrities date" is basically one shot news headline event. Celebrities are human; go figure. Evaders99 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publicly acknowledged and confirmed relationships should be mentioned in the bio even if/after it's broken up. Rumours reported only on tabloids/gossip sites - should not be mentioned in the bio. This the prevalent practice across Wikipedia. MiriArina (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of EchizenRema. ƏXPLICIT 23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very agree with everything Alexanderlee said. When the media is covered the news with multiple different headlines other than confirmed dating that what make the info is significant information to put in Wikipedia, of course if the other headlines also a news that having an impact for Kim Hee-chul and his respective couple. Before i agree with the other editors, of course i will look up for the news in english or korean site regarding the relationship and they do have multiple news but only with same headline which is their confirmed dating, where is only a trivial information not fully relevant. Put it in when they date and then delete it if they break up is already prove that this information is not significant, like Lucia kwon said “Wikipedia is not a reporting website for current events only.” and also to put a dating record like put the dating and the broke up information is also not right since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a gossip magazine that tracks dating record of a particular subject.Timing999 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary for articles on celebrities to include some description of the person's personal life. Of course, any information must be supported by http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Past/Ex relationships if non-notable, can generally be removed in most circumstances. I don't see why K-pop celebrities should be treated differently. We don't need to (and should not) be applying our own subjective judgement to this decision. MiriArina (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of EchizenRema. ƏXPLICIT 23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MiriArina if we talk about Korean and Western celebrities, their personal relationships are handled very differently in the media. Public relationships between celebrities in Korea are a bit taboo and the simple fact that a gossip site stalked, took pictures, posted and forced the two individuals to comment on the situation should be enough reason to not include this, the media or even a television broadcast is toook very carefully when bring a topic regarding past or current celebrity relationship. As much as dangerous and taboo this topic, a dating topic in korea is might lead to cyber bullying. this is article is an Korean celebrity so his article better to follow suit rather than treating it as a Western celebrity. Some of the korean celebrity page has been follow by put and then erase their relationship or not to put it at all for a very same reason but if you choose put it then this is make Wikipedia page become an encyclopedia that is put a temporary information and a trivial news rather a significant and permanent news. So for me this information should not be here until the couple have more notable and significant power.Timing999 (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amused by assertions that marriage somehow makes a relationship more significant. A high-profile relationship can last as long or longer than a marriage. Some editors think relationships are trivial, and others think claims of someone being "Most Anticipated K-Stars" are trivial, being an MC is trivial, and others think actors in minor roles are trivial. His relationships with other idol have already been mentioned many times in the articles intertwined with his MC career. It has been in the Personal life section for 3 months before these repeated attempts to delete the sourced material, with little or no explanation. It would be very strange to leave out his first open relationships when often it comes up in articles. EchizenRema (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:Timing999 That's not exactly true. Local Korean Wikipedia (http://namu.wiki/w/희철) has calmly published this information without making it a taboo or controversy. It's not a taboo in Korea. Please don't try to make it look like one.MiriArina (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of EchizenRema. ƏXPLICIT 23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia doesn't remove information because you think it is a taboo or controversy. You can't enforce Korean opinions of idol relationships being a taboo or controversy on Wikipedia. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EchizenRema the work related is not trivial is a permanent info that is make a notability and significant info of Kim Hee-chul as an celebrity as it have big impact for his career. Is a prove that he is a reputable celebrity. Like i said that, i has research the article news that have a strong notability and significant power regarding to the couple but there are none. The most news article that found is only a confirmation of relationship or where the other host are teasing him which is one shot news headline event that is not need to be in the biography. Being a first or second or third open relationship, is not an important event unless is his first marriage as it has legal power or maybe a relationship where is change their entire career like Hyuna and Dawn's. Not all often people check the Wikipedia unless they are admin or the fans of Kim Hee-chul itself, they might realize late. Myself put attention to this article after the war is exist.Timing999 (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MiriArina please read again the namu wiki link you give, they are not mention the relationship as the headlines but on the other info where they are collected the trivial news such as he talk that xiumin look like sohee, there is even not saying the detail info of their dating date confirmation, only info that he has been teased after the confirmation of relationship whenever the japanese topic come on the show he do. From that you even can see they take a very carefully to not put a dating news. Namu wiki work different with Wikipedia as they have their own section to out any trivial news which is ‘other’ that is not available on Wikipedia and even that, they not put the confirmation of dating as their other info.Timing999 (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or remove

[edit]

To summarize, on April 21, 58.8.254.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (later made an account called Timing999) removed the sentence about Heechul dating Momo, with the reason “personal life such as dating no need to be add, the dating info will be include once the couple get married.” A edit war followed this and we are currently trying to reach a consensus on whether to remove dating information from Korean artists’ pages, and what makes it notable and significant to be included or not. Posts were made on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea informing people to join the discussion.

The information has actually been in dispute longer than that. Earlier removed on March 24 by lucia Kwon, re-added again on April 8 by an IP editor and has been in stronger dispute since then. Alex (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above paragraphs are chaotic, so please post your opinion here. Format your comment to contain "Keep" or "Remove", and include a rationale for your choice.


  • Keep as “idol dating news is sensitive” and “Public relationships between celebrities in Korea are a bit taboo” is not a valid argument per WP:CENSOR. Also, it doesn't fall under WP:BLPGOSSIP as it is a fact that has been confirmed by both parties and there are tons and tons of articles about it. The norm is to allow such facts as seen in almost all artists’ articles on Wikipedia, be it a Korean artist (Park Shin-hye x Choi Tae-joon, Jung Eun-woo, and Shin Min-a x Kim Woo-bin, etc) or western artist (Miley Cyrus, Nick Jonas, etc). It is a Neutral point of view, Verifiable, and is not an original research, so I see no reason to remove it per WP:BLP. Can people asking for it to be remove please provide a guideline or Wikipedia rule that state it should not be on the page? Also, Alex said "As another example, the length of a relationship, such as Seven and Park Han-byul's relationship lasting 12 years seems significant enough that it should be mentioned," meaning that only long term relationships are allowed, but what make that more significant if it has no impact on their career and how do we determent when they dated long enough that we can add the info to their Wikipedia page? Also, people keep saying that info that is not signification to the person's career should be deleted, so should we also delete Heechul's Early life section where it takes about his birthplace, birth year, family, and what he majored in in Uni? Please be consistent. Plus, he has always been rumored to be gay as written even in his page, so his dating info is important as it dispel those rumors. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why dating information is important to dispel rumours considering it's already in the article that he has stated himself that he's not gay. Alex (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my main point that is why I wrote it at the end, what I meant is that it is relevant to the person and what is written in his article. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CherryPie94, no, I did not at all state that only long term relationships are allowed. Please do not claim I have said something that I haven't, especially when what I have said is in this very thread. I have said that, in my opinion, relationships should only be mentioned if there is something particularly notable or significant about them. A relationship that lasted over a decade (as the relationship I used as an example) would certainly seem significant. Alex (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"meaning only long term relationships are allowed" NO, this is still NOT what I have been saying. Please stop twisting what I have said to fit your agenda. Alex (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote “As another example, the length of a relationship, such as Seven and Park Han-byul's relationship lasting 12 years seems significant enough that it should be mentioned” and that is what I understood from your example. If not for being a long term relationship, what make this more significant for you to support and use it as an example and reject the addition here? Also, what is your opinion on Park Shin-hye x Choi Tae-joon and Shin Min-a x Kim Woo-bin? ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as another example. Claiming that what I said means that only a long term relationship is allowed seems to be purposely ignoring what I said right before that, and what I have said throughout this entire thread. If there is something particularly notable or significant about the relationship then it should be mentioned. The length of that relationship is what makes it significant — it lasted over a decade. Comparing it to a three month relationship is quite laughable. Then we have a five year relationship, and one that's over two years. As I said before, I have no specific length that I would describe as significant, but a relationship that has only being going for three months hardly seems significant at all. Alex (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t know if they dated only for 4 months, the sentence states it was confirmed 4 month ago, it doesn’t not talk about since when or how long they have dated as that would be speculation. They may have been dating for a few years, which would make it significant in your view. What is a well verified fact is that the couple and both agencies CONFIRMED it 4 months ago, and it is irrelevant and unknown how long they dated. So, we should wait a year then add it back to the page? When do you suggest it can be added again if removed? ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read my previous comments which have already answered that, twice. I'm not going in circles. As for speculating the relationship could have been going on for years, that is unconfirmed, and stating otherwise would be original research and therefore irrelevant. Alex (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not answered. You keep saying "If there is something particularly notable or significant about the relationship then it should be mentioned. The length of that relationship is what makes it significant — it lasted over a decade." What I want to know is what is your suggested parameter? When to add and when to removed? When is it long enough to become significant? First you said "A relationship that lasted over a decade (as the relationship I used as an example) would certainly seem significant," then you said "Then we have a five year relationship, and one that's over two years." So is a decade significant, 5 years, 2 years? All I see is you judging subjectively without backing your opinions with Wikipedia guidelines or rules. We can't just have people subjectively judge and keep removing and adding things creating chaos on Korean artists' pages. You can't state a specific duration because that is subjective, so your point should be changed to remove all dating info (unless married) or keep all, as we can't objectively determine when the relationship lasted long enough to be signification. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you are purposely ignoring other things that I have said. I have said twice in comments above that I do not have a specific time frame, so yes, I have answered, twice, like I said. And no my point is not to simply remove all relationships because, as you have ignored again, I have said, MULTIPLE times now, that NOTABLE AND/OR SIGNIFICANT relations should be included. You have repeatedly twisted what I have said and ignored points I have made in order to push your agenda, so I am not going to comment further and continue to go in circles with you. My view and !vote is still the same. Alex (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you "do not have a specific time frame" then this becomes subjective and you would keep determining the significance based on your personal opinions which would create chaos on Korean artists' pages if editors do it too. If the dating info in Heechul's page is removed, it should be removed on other pages as well just like Eradication of variety show sections (guest appearances are removed everywhere on Wikipedia). For us to do that we need parameters just like the Eradication of variety show sections. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove if the only thing said about the relationship is something along the lines of "person A is dating person B" as it seems trivial. If there is something particularly notable or significant about the relationship (see examples above) then keep. Alex (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"something particularly notable or significant about the relationship" - the first time he is in a public relationship throughout his 15 years in the industry. notable and significant MiriArina (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of EchizenRema. ƏXPLICIT 23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the temporary information without fully relevant and significant no need to be included until they bounded by legal document or they having more news that having biggest impact to their life and career like example has states above by Alexanderlee rather than only a confirmed and teasing news.Timing999 (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In your opening sentence you also stated “until they bounded by legal document”, the relationship may not be a marriage but it is certainly official and has been confirmed by both sides. I'm amused by assertions that marriage somehow makes a relationship more significant. A high-profile relationship can last as long or longer than a marriage. EchizenRema (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EchizenRema, yes, that how it works in asia mostly. The significant is when they are married but exceptional is still possible like is maybe made one of them out from their group or company like celebrity kpop example that has stated above or your long relationship reason is possible but for now no need to be put in please to put it back later when they has over a decade or more than 5 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timing999 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: It should be included. It is customary for articles on celebrities to include some description of the person's personal life. Publicly acknowledged and confirmed relationships should be mentioned in the bio. The consensus of the WP community, established in hundreds of celebrity articles already. We don't get to decide that we don't like a certain kind of coverage. MiriArina (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of EchizenRema. ƏXPLICIT 23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove Including the relationship in the personal life section amounts to nothing more than announcing a headline. The handling of relationship news is different for western and Korean artists. The situations tend to be more delicate, and there are many Korean artists who do not have their dating history listed on their page. This relationship in particular has been kept out of the public eye with the exception of the announcement itself, unlike other, more public couples mentioned in previous posts. Lucia kwon (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The situations tend to be more delicate, and there are many korean artists who do not have their dating history listed on their page." This is my third time saying it, please read WP:CENSOR. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This information is neutral, referenced and relevant to the article. Placed in the respective personal life section and corresponds purpose of this section. This information in full compliance with Wikipedia's current policies has more refers to other pages where it included that the opposite. To simply say that "it is and not notable, trivial" and “idol dating news is delicate/sensitive and taboo” is not good enough. the rationales are lacking. And it should stay as it was for the past 3 months.EchizenRema (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: Per Alex and others. WP:ONUS - there is no need to include all verifiable information. Dating news headlines are not relevant to their notability as an artist or career. Evaders99 (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia does not censor neutral, verifiable information which is relevant to the subject of the article.--Jack Frost (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, A notability of a relationship for a subject in an encyclopedia is not based on factor like a ‘first public relationship in 15 years’ alone, but also how it is notable to the subject overall and not just for momentary period. Having a date is not an achievement but a happiness that might temporary or in longer period. For now there is no significant change happen on the person in article or his date life by dating to each other nor they has been together for more than 5 years. I know usually this part gonna be deleted when they break up but why you need to put in the beginning if one day you need to delete it, it’s make this thing is not actually very important information. So better than we write it then delete it afterward, just don’t write it at all unless like others said ‘more than a decade’ or ‘more than 5 years’ or having more significant thing happen to their life and career because they are date to each other.Anggie takasili (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you’re stating that relationships aren’t included at all unless they’re a marriage or "nor they has been together for more than 5 years.", please link to this consensus and and especially where 5 years come from and show us proof. I think it's incorrect and flawed to base A notability of a relationship on legal documents, length or "5 years" mark. Zanhha (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of EchizenRema. ƏXPLICIT 23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that just some example but then when they are marriage, Korea celebrity is free to talk about their other half so more variant news might come out and is become very significant. Like someone has stated above, the news that come out for the person on article regarding the relationship is not fully significant and notable since is only a confirmation dating news or the celebrity being teased and so i think most dating news would fall under routine news coverage. Anggie takasili (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"when they are marriage, Korea celebrity is free to talk about their other half " No. They're free to talk about their other half whenever they want it has nothing to do with legal papers/status. as CherryPie94 said above If we "do not have a specific time frame" then this becomes subjective and we will keep determining the significance based on our personal opinions which would create chaos. If the dating info in Heechul's page is removed, based on "length of the relationship" or "legal documents" then it should be remove from all Korean celebrities articles. Zanhha (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of EchizenRema. ƏXPLICIT 23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not really allow to talk about it, someone has say about how Korea handle a dating news above. They take carefully not even allow to mention it explicitly, that’s how why dating news of a korea couple who not married yet specially that still a new couple is not many. Unless they are really famous with significant reputable as couple like Hyuna and Dawn's. Lucia kwon (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heechul already talked about his relationship multiple of times you can see lots of articles about it on Naver. So please stop trying to censor Wikipedia because you want to follow the Korean logic of relationships should be hidden, even though it is confirmed news in this case. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
look at the article again, he only mention his relationship once. On taeyeon show where it’s aired not long after their confirmation of dating, and he not even mention her name and is even a clarification about that he already date her for 3 or 1 years is wrong since i watch the video and you are still can watch it if you want it and so the news is still not very important since is not have a significant changes toward his and his other half life and career for now. Lucia kwon (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you a link with 3,249 articles and you only chose one article. Whether it is significant or not, is not up to us to decide as that is subjective. See western artist such as Miley Cyrus Demi Lovato, and Nick Jonas, they all have their relationship info, why censor it here when it is well-sourced? ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
since from 3,249 articles mostly is coming from one show and the others is a teasing from the other mc, is also have a thing such as he said that no one will think something else when other man touch it. All the news is not a news that having a significant change to him or his other half at all and none of the news that he even said that he mention her name. As you know most of korean celebrity is deleted their info after their break up like based on this consensus here since is become insignificant news when their break up and this not happen for many Western celebrity dating history so compare it to Western celebrity is a little off since even how handle the article after break up is different and that was ok, this will be not different with that if we reach consensus. After all i see the purpose of this consensus is not to censor the relationship but to remove and hold on until more significant or notable article or facts that impact to the couple exist.Lucia kwon (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it has been discussed here previous and relationships were allowed, so why do we need to discuss this again: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive250#Do_we_report_celebrity_dating.3F. As for removing info about past relationships, I did not know it came only from 2 editors without any discussion, this is not a consensus and should not be followed without a proper discussion. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
well as you can read on that discussion, ‘it's on an article-by-article basis. Although I don't think it belongs -- I do not view it as encyclopedic content --’. There is why for me we need look on article by article to think is really important to be an encyclopedic content or not. I don’t said it’s not allow to write it there and i guess main purpose of others who choose remove is same, is just let’s wait more article in basis that make this relationship having more significant impact so it’s strong the article of Kim Hee-chul and having more meaning for encyclopedic content. For the removal, if you want to put it back then i think you will create a more war so despite is only two people or not, they having the best decision. Lucia kwon (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That quote is an opinion of one editor. The general Wikipedia consensus is that current relationships can be included as long as there are reliable sources to support, and that is why you see many articles contain relationships without any opposition. Heck, even an article that contains a one-sentence ex-relationship is given a Good Article because it is reliably sourced, so saying that it does not give "meaning" is a poor excuse. Heolkpop (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i think i not need reply anything since what i want to say already being said but i think you both need to move on after all it won’t change the decision whether you remove or keep and so do i, i will stay vote for remove for a very same reason like others who choose remove said so we don’t need keep talking in circle. Anggie takasili (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Relationships that are widely covered by reliable sources are notable. Wikipedia does not WP:CENSOR information just because people may feel uncomfortable/sensitive about it. If a several reliable sources comment on a relationship, then it is notable and should be in the article. What an online encyclopedia is is a matter of opinion. On WP we use reliable sources to decide matters of opinion. I see no reason to remove it per WP:BLP, regardless of how we feel about the info. Zanhha (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of EchizenRema. ƏXPLICIT 23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I agree with those who commented that It either should be deleted from all (Korean) celebrities articles until they get legal documents or it should stay. Specifically, the criterion "notability" is getting highly subjective here and did not establish a clear parameter. Taniasan6 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of EchizenRema. ƏXPLICIT 23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taniasan6 i’m sorry, so are you actually choose keep or remove? Since your reason is look like a remove but your decision is keep? Lucia kwon (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don’t see why this article should be treated differently from thousands of other celebrities' articles where dating information (not legally married couples) are included. We should NOT use different standards. If you think differently then it is much wider issues. And then Heechul's article is the wrong place to discuss it. As long as we're NOT talking about whether all dating information from all celebrities' articles should be deleted if the couple is not married - it should be included. And we should use the general Wikipedia consensus that says that current relationships can be included as long as there are reliable sources to support. Taniasan6 (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of EchizenRema. ƏXPLICIT 23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: CherryPie94 i has post, but since you are one of the main editor for heechul page, can we know about what is decide for the dating info on personal life session then? I think better if we can reach this consensus. Timing999 (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timing999, currently it is 7 removed and 5 keeps. There is no consensus, general agreement, so far the results are almost equal. Maybe wait more or per WP:NOCON: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Artistry" section

[edit]

Can we please add some information on "Artistry" section? and his "Public image" seems to be incomplete and lack of reliable information. i hope someone add better sources or info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.243.161.171 (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

This picture is very old now, he deserves a new one.

It is not old. It is from 2019. You don't need to update it every few months. See Beyoncé and Madonna. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

What about heechul's "Women's Era criticism controversy". Why was it not included? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.243.210.117 (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I hope someone explain it with full reference. people make a ton of rumour about it. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.185.154.210 (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: Namuwiki isn't considered a reliable source by many. Even WikiProject Korea finds it unreliable when listing common sources due to their frequent inaccuracy and biases. Could you find a better source? —beetricks ~ talk · email 13:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think they mean this: (unreliable soompi but good if you don't know Korean) https://www.soompi.com/article/1395950wpp/super-juniors-kim-heechul-fires-back-at-criticism-over-his-remarks-about-how-malicious-commenters-acted-after-passing-of-sulli-and-goo-hara and (reliable Korean article) https://sports.chosun.com/news/ntype.htm?id=202004230100177700011179&servicedate=20200422. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CherryPie94: Good guess, but that is not what they are on about. I translated the page OP had given in this thread to English on Papago, and it seems the link had nothing to do with the topic you suggested it was about. In fact, it was a page dating back as far as 2017, the subject actually being some lyrics deemed controversial by feminists and Womad. Though I'm not too sure on what the Women's Era means. Do you think this is worthy of being mentioned in the article?
Pastebin to translation [2]—beetricks ~ talk · email 00:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, According to my information these two issues are related. Mshb73 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How so? —beetricks ~ talk · email 17:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC) I can now see how they link. —beetricks ~ talk · email 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Women Era" is an blog/forum. From Soompi: "People who have been my fans for a long time and fans of other singers know how the online café “Women Era” create trashy rumors about me and many other people." CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CherryPie94: Thank you for letting me know, but what I don't understand is when I tried searching up "Women's Era" on Google, it got nothing about the Korean blog. I also might've mixed up the controversy with another and skimmed through the articles too quick to notice what was written about Heechul's response regarding Women Era. I apologise to you and Mshb73 for the confusion.—beetricks ~ talk · email 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Hee-chul&oldid=1234652042"