Talk:Roy Kim

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)

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)


 * @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)


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