Talk:Suga/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2024

As stated in the personal information section. “After being breathtested, and found to have BAC level of 0.227%,[83][84][85] he was fined and his license was revoked.” However, the police did not release the blood alcohol level. This is just gossip. Carolbug (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done It's not gossip - as you've indicated in your copy+paste from the article, the statement is attributed to no less than three WP:RELIABLESOURCES: Yonhap News Agency, Maeil Business Newspaper, and The Korea Times. RachelTensions (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

In fact I've just added three more WP:RELIABLESOURCES: The Chosun Ilbo, The Korea Herald, and Korea JoongAng Daily. RachelTensions (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. The fact that RS repeat unconfirmed claims does not make them valid; WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, especially for a BLP where caution should be used. The BAC level was first reported by Donga Ilbo on August 9 as an "exclusive". However, on August 12, the police held a press conference addressing the, at the time, ongoing investigation and, as reported originally by Xports News, made a statement specifically referring to the BAC level, stating "We can say that it is at a level where a license is revoked, but it is difficult to confirm the specific figure" (some other media reporting this are 1 2 3). So the figure is unconfirmed and uncorroborated, and it is not clear where Donga got it from. Media outlets repeating this does not make it true; same happened with the CCTV that was assumed to be him for days and reported as such everywhere until another investigation debunked it. In this case, no separate investigation has taken place, the media just ran with the number, and the police is unlikely to reveal the actual BAC level if they haven't done it so far (and apparently it is not common practice to disclose it). I think it should not be mentioned, but if the consensus is to keep it, then at the very least the statement by the police should also be included. - Ïvana (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

We have no less than six well-regarded, reliable, independent secondary sources that report 0.227%, with at least two of them attributing their source of that number as being from the police. These sources are from several weeks after the initial flurry of news broke out. Some of them are even from after he was convicted.

Alternative wording could be something like: "After being breathtested, and found, according to multiple sources, to have BAC level of 0.227%, he was fined and his license was revoked." which would soften it a little. RachelTensions (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I tendentially agree with Ivana but I also think that the reported BAC level should be mentioned since multiple sources took it as confirmed, however we could give it more context in light of what Ivana said. The wording could be something like "After being breathtested, and found to have a BAC level higher than permitted, he was fined and his license was revoked. The Donga Ilbo reported that the BAC level was 0.227%[1], though the police stated that it was difficult to confirm the specific figure[2][3]. The BAC level of 0.227% has since been picked up by other sources[links to some of the sources that reported it]." Chiya^ko92 09:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

None of that negates what I have said. The other sources are simply replicating what Donga originally reported, which hasn't been confirmed by any of the parties actually involved. And the alternative wording sounds worse in my opinion, because it gives a false sense of legitimacy by mentioning multiple sources, when they're really just echoing each other without proper verification or independent investigation. I think something like what Chiya proposed aligns more closely with what I had in mind as one of the options: mentioning the supposed BAC as well as the police statement. - Ïvana (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The other sources are simply replicating what Donga originally reported ... they're really just echoing each other without proper verification or independent investigation. There's no evidence to support that all those other reliable, independent, secondary sources are simply copying what The Donga Ilbo said without verification. None of the other sources attribute their reporting to Donga, and none have retracted their statements (in fact, they've continued to repeat it, even months later) even after the police apparently issued what is essentially a 'can't confirm or deny'.

You can go down the list of reliable sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources and select pretty much any newspaper and find them reporting 0.227%; here's more: The Korea Economic Daily, Asia Today, The Chosun Ilbo, The Asia Business Daily, Hankook Ilbo, Newsis, OSEN, The Hankyoreh Huffpost Korea, Ilgan Sports, Korea JoongAng Daily, The Kookje Daily News, Kukmin Ilbo, Kyunghyang Shinmun. News1, Newspim, No Cut News, Segye Ilbo, Seoul Shinmun, Sports Today

Not to get into original research, but the most clear indicator that that loooong list of reliable sources aren't just making things up is in what we now know to be the end result of this whole incident. As reported by many of those sources above, under Article 148-2 the Road Traffic Act [4]:

• The penalty for a BAC between 0.08% and 0.2% is 1-2 years imprisonment or a fine between 5 and 10 million won.
• The penalty for a BAC between over 0.2% is 2-5 years imprisonment or a fine between 10 and 20 million won.
  • Suga was given a fine of 15 million won. So, what does that tell you?

RachelTensions (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's our role to determine if the BAC level is true or not based on assumptions; it might be, but we don't know, because the only confirmed statement we have from the police just mentions that it is above license revocation level (basically "no comments"). And now that I am rereading the original article Donga doesn't even mention the police as a source, it just says "According to the Dong-A Ilbo's report on the 9th" (give it or take).

There's no evidence to support that all those other reliable, independent, secondary sources are simply copying what The Donga Ilbo said without verification and there's also no proof that they did verify it. The BAC level was reported first by Donga as an "exclusive" and then other sources did the same. That is innegable. Even if they are not attributing it to them (I remember one article I read just saying something like "according to Korean media") the claim originated there, and as far as I know no one else tried to conduct their own investigation or reach out to the police on their own (or if they did, they received no answer).

I see no reason to exclude the statement by the police since it is the only one we have from one of the parties involved specifically addressing the BAC level. If in the future Suga or Hybe also comment on it we should include it as well. What do you think about Chiya's suggestion? - Ïvana (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We have no less than 26 reputable, reliable, independent South Korean newspapers that corroborate that his BAC was 0.227%. The police didn't outright deny the 0.227% number, they just didn't confirm it in their public statement at the press conference. But that's ok, because we have 26 reputable and reliable sources that do confirm it.

It's important to note that we attribute none statements in that section to the police - we don't use terms like "according to police", or "police said his BAC was 0.227%". Everything is just statements of fact as they appear in reliable sources. And given the sheer amount of reliable sources, I don't feel that it's necessary to expand on that fact. RachelTensions (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep emphasizing that they are reliable, reputable, independent. They may be for some things, but in this case, most of them uncritically shared the wrong CCTV footage, assuming it was him (The Korea Economic Daily, Asia Today, The Chosun Ilbo, The Asia Business Daily, Huffpost Korea, Ilgan Sports, Kookmin Ilbo, Kyunghyang Shinmun, News1, No Cut News, Segye Ilbo, Seoul Shinmun, Maeil, The Korea Herald) so no, I don't think we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they did their due diligence and double checked with the police before reporting the BAC level as a fact. And just because the police didn't deny the number doesn't mean we can assume it is true. That logic doesn't seem applicable for any article but especially not for a BLP. I don't see a reason to exclude the direct statement by the police. - Ïvana (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I clicked through those articles and you'll note that a lot of them attribute the reporting regarding the CCTV video all back to one source, indicating that the CCTV is not their own reporting (frequent phrases like "According to CCTV released by JTBC" appear). No such attribution or phrasing appears in any of the reporting regarding any of the BAC reports.

Anyway, alternative wording I'd go for which would expand upon the subject: After being breathtested, and found to have an elevated blood alcohol level, he was fined and his license was revoked. Multiple sources reported Suga's blood alcohol level was found to be 0.227%, nearly eight times South Korea's legal limit, though police refused confirmation. RachelTensions (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, JTBC Newsroom is a television show so I assume they are obligated to give credit if they share footage from them. That still doesn't negate the fact that they uncritically shared it, didn't contact them for more details, didn't bother to check on their own if the CCTV was correct, etc. My point still applies.

Btw, it seems that the type of vehicle also determines the fine (and electric kickboards are almost considered proper vehicles for some reason) so just because the fine was high that doesn't prove the reported BAC level was correct. Still, doesn't matter since that's OR, but wanted to mention it.

I don't see any compelling reason not to mention the direct statement issued by the police.

We have already make our own positions clear, so maybe it's better to let other people participate. We can always just create an RfC if this fails to gain traction. I would actually like to hear from uninvolved editors that have more expertise dealing with BLPs. - Ïvana (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

So is the alternative wording I suggested that says the police refused confirmation a no-go?

If you’d like we can ask for an uninvolved third opinion at WP:THIRD, just let me know if you’re open to that. RachelTensions (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think maybe we can wait for a couple of days and see if any of the regulars/people that usually update the page are willing to give their two cents? Also WP:BLPN might be a better place to ask for an objective opinion. What do you think? - Ïvana (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to ping the top ten contributors (that are still active on WP) to see if we can get more input: @Carlobunnie, Explicit, Btspurplegalaxy, FrozenIcicle, Orangesclub, Flabshoe1, Abdotorg, Snowflake91, SnowKang, and Seefooddiet:

The proposed wording options by Chiya and Rachel are as follows:

1. After being breathtested, and found to have a BAC level higher than permitted, he was fined and his license was revoked. The Donga Ilbo reported that the BAC level was 0.227%, though the police stated that it was difficult to confirm the specific figure. The BAC level of 0.227% has since been picked up by other sources.
2. After being breathtested, and found to have an elevated blood alcohol level, he was fined and his license was revoked. Multiple sources reported Suga's blood alcohol level was found to be 0.227%, nearly eight times South Korea's legal limit, though police refused confirmation.

Any thoughts or suggestions? Which option would you prefer? - Ïvana (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Whichever option we go with, I'd really like to avoid including the phrase "difficult to confirm the specific figure". While it's a correct direct translation, it's wishy washy and weirdly worded in English. Was it "difficult to confirm" because the police didn't have possession of the specific figure? (highly unlikely), Was it "difficult to confirm" because they didn't have permission to confirm the specific figure? (probably), etc.

We should avoid using that directly translated phrase and instead just say the police refused confirmation of the specific figure. RachelTensions (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the second one. It's less jargon-y and gets straight to the point. Having "multiple sources reported" right off the bat sounds more reliable than going with the Donga Ilbo first, followed by the "other sources" after. Thanks for the ping, always happy to help! FrozenIcicle (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the second option sums it up perfectly. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 07:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd go with Option 2 and just adjust the wording to "Multiple news outlets..." and "...legal limit, however this was not confirmed by police". -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)