Talk:Choerry

The lead needs to reflect the reliably sourced information already present in the body of the article. The “2023–present” section cites multiple RS confirming that Choerry’s contract with Blockberry Creative was terminated and that she subsequently signed exclusively with Modhaus, where she is active as part of ARTMS and Odd Eye Circle. Since the body of the article describes only her Modhaus/ARTMS/OEC activities, the lead should summarize this per WP:LEAD and WP:RS. The previous wording (“is a member of Loona”) contradicts the reliably sourced content in the body, so updating the lead is appropriate. APDuck (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Choerry is a member of Loona" does not contradict anything in the body of this page. She is still a member of Loona and even if this was no longer the case, it would still be notable enough to mention that she was a member in the lead. Also, there is no consensus to say that Odd Eye Circle is an ARTMS sub-unit and not a sub-unit of Loona. Please see Talk:Modhaus. Please don't change the page again until you have consensus here for changing the lead. — Cactoideae♫♪ (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

1. **Lead must summarize the body (WP:LEAD, WP:V, WP:RS)**

The article body cites multiple reliable sources confirming Choerry’s contract termination with Blockberry Creative, her exclusive signing with Modhaus, and her present‑tense activities under Modhaus as part of ARTMS and Odd Eye Circle. The ARTMS article also lists her as an ARTMS member under Modhaus. The lead must summarize this sourced content; it cannot contradict it.

2. **No sourced Loona activity after contract termination (WP:V, WP:ONUS)**

There are no reliable sources in the body describing any Loona activity after her contract termination and exclusive Modhaus signing. Per WP:V and WP:ONUS, any present‑tense claim of Loona membership requires citations in the article body. None are present.

3. **The Loona page contradicts the present‑tense claim (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSISTENCY)**

The Loona article states that the members terminated their contracts and redebuted under Modhaus. If that article is being used as contextual background, it contradicts the present‑tense claim that Choerry “is a member of Loona.” The lead cannot assert a present‑tense status that is unsupported by this article’s citations and contradicted by related articles.

4. **Past membership is already documented (WP:LEAD, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE)**

Her past Loona membership is already covered in the career section, which satisfies WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The issue is solely the unsupported present‑tense claim in the lead.

5. **OEC classification is separate from the lead wording (WP:LEAD)**

The lead does not depend on how Odd Eye Circle is categorized. It only needs to summarize what is verifiable in the body, which documents her Modhaus/ARTMS activities, including OEC as part of her current Modhaus‑era work.

6. **Consensus follows sourcing, not belief (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ONUS)**

Per WP:ONUS, the burden is on those adding or restoring contested material to provide reliable sources. Until such sources are added to the body, the lead must reflect what is verifiable in the article’s existing citations and in directly linked articles. Consensus is based on policy and sourcing, not personal interpretation.

--APDuck (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Again, nothing in the body says that Choerry is not a member of Loona. You are inferring this, which is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Further, this argument involves all the Loona members sans Chuu who was removed by BBC, not just Choerry. If you want to push this argument, you should really be doing it on Talk:Loona.

I'm going to be very honest; it appears to me that you are using something like chatGPT to formulate this argument. If this is the case, please note use of AI is generally prohibited and you should disclose any use of AI per WP:AIPOLICY — Cactoideae♫♪ (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

To address the points raised:

1. WP:ONUS applies to positive claims, and the sourcing already establishes the negative condition.

The article’s own citations describe the members as no longer part of Loona:

– Ref. 13 (2023‑01‑13) documents the injunctions terminating the members’ contracts, specifically naming Choerry among them.

– Ref. 14 (2023‑03‑17) refers to them as “former members of the group LOONA”, specifically naming Choerry among them.

– Ref. 15 (2023‑04‑01) states that Modhaus signed “former LOONA members” to exclusive contracts, specifically naming Choerry among them.

Once reliable sources used in the article establish that status, it removes the basis for any present‑tense claim of ongoing Loona membership for Choerry. Per WP:ONUS, the burden is on those adding or restoring a *positive* assertion (e.g. “is a member of Loona”) to provide reliable sources supporting that claim *after* these documented dates of departure. No such sources are present.

2. This is not OR.

No inference is being made beyond what the cited sources state:

– contracts legally terminated

– exclusive Modhaus signing

– current activities exclusively under Modhaus (ARTMS / OEC)

– all Loona members redebuted under different labels

These are all verifiable facts already cited in the article body and in the Loona and ARTMS articles. Summarizing cited material in the lead is required by WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and does not constitute OR.

3. The scope of this discussion is the lead wording of this article only.

The issue concerns the unsupported present‑tense claim in the Choerry lead only. Discussion here is appropriate per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Broader group‑wide questions can be discussed elsewhere if needed, but they do not prevent resolving the current sourcing issue in this article.

4. Regarding AI use:

I am drafting my own comments as someone who enjoys working with Wikipedia policy. If you are referring to my ** use, it is simply my preferred formatting style for emphasis, I can use bold if you prefer. In any case, WP:AIPOLICY concerns the creation of article content only, not the conduct of a sourcing discussion. The sourcing requirements under WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ONUS remain unchanged regardless of this point.

To move forward:

If there are reliable sources supporting present‑tense Loona membership for Choerry after contract termination and exclusive Modhaus signing, please provide them so they can be evaluated. In the absence of such sources, the lead should reflect what is verifiable in the article body.

--APDuck (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ref 19 from August 2025 states "The girl group is made up of five LOONA members" not "former members".

Again, for the record, I completely disagree with removing the mention of Loona from the lead. I think your argument to call her a former member has some merit, but I disagree from what I've seen. I recommend taking it to the Artms or Loona talk pages because this argument involves the other members as well and you'll get more opinions weighing in. — Cactoideae♫♪ (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Cactoideae:

The quoted phrase cannot be read in isolation. While Ref 19 uses the phrase “five LOONA members,” the surrounding context discusses "their" departure from BlockBerry Creative together, and their formation of ARTMS in 2023. In that context, the source does not clearly distinguish whether the phrase is being used as a current membership designation or as a biographical identifier. The phrase is therefore ambiguous with respect to the issue of membership status and does not clearly verify the stronger present-tense assertion that Choerry "is a member of LOONA" in the lead.

This ambiguity is particularly significant given the other sources within the article. Of the post-2023 sources currently cited in the article that characterise membership status, four of five explicitly use formulations such as "former" or "ex":

Based on post-2023 sources currently cited in this article, four references explicitly use former/ex-member terminology, while Ref. 19 is the sole post-2023 source cited in support of present-tense wording. However, when considered within the context of the article as a whole, the phrasing remains ambiguous with respect to membership status.

A broader review of post-2023 coverage corroborates this pattern. Publications including JoongAng Daily, NME, Billboard and Sports Donga have used "former-member", "ex-LOONA", "post-LOONA" and "출신" characterisations. In some cases (e.g. JoongAng Daily), former-member terminology and "five members of LOONA" appear simultaneously, demonstrating that the phrase can appear alongside explicit former-member terminology within the same article.

A survey of major reliable sources reveals representative examples:

Under WP:V and WP:LEAD, a challenged affirmative claim requires clear sourcing. Given the ambiguity of Ref.19 and the sourcing pattern outlined above, the present-tense statement that Choerry "is a member of LOONA" is not clearly verified.

--APDuck (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

APDuck, I cannot argue with you in good faith because I truly believe you are using chatGPT or the like to write for you and I will not argue with an LLM. — Cactoideae♫♪ (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is a dispute regarding the lead sentence of the Choerry article.

The current lead states that Choerry "is a member of LOONA". Editors disagree regarding whether the sources cited in the article support the present-tense wording currently used in the lead.

The dispute concerns how sources published during the period covered by the article's 2023–present section should be interpreted for purposes of the lead. The discussion is documented in this "Lead wording regarding group membership" section on the article talk page, where the relevant sources and competing interpretations have been discussed in detail.

A third opinion on whether the sources cited in the article support the present-tense wording currently used in the lead would be appreciated. APDuck (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

A Third Opinion request has been opened regarding the dispute discussed at Talk:Choerry#Lead wording regarding group membership. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Third opinion. APDuck (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Response to third opinion request:

Howdy doody y'all. Friendly editor from 3O stopping by. Cacto, you seem well versed in kpop stuff so please let me know if my initial summary here is correct. Choerry became a member of OEC and the larger LOONA in 2017 which was owned by Blockberry. Stuff happened and a number of members got out of their contracts with Blockberry but they still liked each other so they all went and signed a contract with a new company called Modhaus. Does this sound accurate? Further digging seems to show that Blockberry has shutdown. My opinion is that until something shows the contrary, LOONA has ended so it should be referred to in past tense. Also APDuck, while reading your comments I had the same thought of LLM usage as cactoideae. I can't say exactly what made my spidey sense tingle but I wanted you to be aware of it if you truly aren't. Moritoriko (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Moritoriko. Your summary is correct, but I will add some of the other members (such as Yeojin ) are still recognized as members without being called a "former" member. Blockberry is defunct and the group Loona is inactive without an official disbandment. I will note here a similar situation with the group Pixy. Pixy is inactive and members Sua and Rinji never officially left the group, so they are still listed as current members. The group itself is not stated as disbanded in the article because there is no source stating so . Similarly, Loona did not disband and none of the members (other than Chuu) has officially left or been removed from the group.

I'll restate my stance here on changing Choerry's page to say "former member": I believe there may be some merit to the argument of saying that Choerry and the other Artms members are "former members of Loona" in their articles. However, the argument involves all the Loona members and should be held on either the Artms or Loona talk page to get more opinions. — Cactoideae♫♪ (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I unfortunately do not read korean so I will take your word for that. I will counter with examples like LMFAO and One Direction that both ended with Indefinite Hiatus but are spoken of in past tense. Of course the article can be changed in the future if anything changes. Moritoriko (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Following the Third Opinion and ensuing discussion, I think it is useful to return to the specific sourcing issue raised here.

The question is not whether the lead must necessarily say that Choerry is a “former member” of LOONA. The question is whether the current present-tense wording, that Choerry “is a member of LOONA”, is clearly supported by the sources cited in this article.

The examples raised following the Third Opinion do not appear to contribute to resolution of that issue:

First, the cited Sports Khan article cited above in relation to Yeojin [2] does not state that she is currently a member of LOONA. It discusses Yeojin’s solo activities under the new solo activity name “여진(L∞na)”, using the stylised infinity symbol “∞” in place of the two “O”s in LOONA. The article describes “여진(L∞na)” as a new name carrying forward a narrative and worldview. That is distinct from the group name LOONA and is not evidence of current group membership.

More importantly, the article’s own affiliation wording cuts against the interpretation being placed on it. The article describes Yeojin as “이달의 소녀 출신 가수 여진” specifically using former-affiliation language in relation to LOONA. Taken at its highest, the article shows a solo artist adopting a new name for her solo activities.

Second, the Pixy example raised above is only an analogy to another Wikipedia article and its edit history [3]. Even if taken as a generic comparison, it is not reliable-source evidence for the wording in Choerry’s article. It is also of limited relevance to this discussion, as applying it here would require inference across a different group, different company, different career history, different member circumstances, and a different source record.

Accordingly, I do not think either example verifies the current lead wording in this article. The core issue remains whether reliable sources clearly support the present-tense statement that Choerry “is a member of LOONA”. The examples raised so far still leave that present-tense wording without direct support.

If there is a clear reliable source directly supporting that present-tense statement, it should be identified here. If no such sourcing can be produced, the appropriate next step toward consensus is to seek further uninvolved input through the relevant dispute-resolution process. APDuck (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Should the lead of this article continue to state that Choerry “is a member of Loona”, or should that present-tense wording be revised based on the sources currently cited in the article and discussed above?

This RfC concerns whether the sources cited in this article support the present-tense wording in the lead. Wider uninvolved input is requested. APDuck (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Support revision/change to past tense if the cited sources don't clearly support the present-tense wording ("is a member"). Under WP:V and WP:ONUS the present-tense claim needs supporting sources. If the one 2025 source mentioning "LOONA members" appears to use LOONA as a biographical identifier then that doesn’t clearly establish current membership. I agree with Cactoideae that the question affects the other members as well. I don't think that prevents resolving the wording in this article, but after this RfC it would make sense to start a discussion at Talk:Loona about whether the other member biographies should be updated on the same sourcing basis. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Support as far as I can tell, but we need some better sources. --FeldBum (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply