Jump to content

Talk:Kim Sae-ron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
‹ The template below (Copied) is being considered for merging with merged-from. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kim Sae-ron. 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) 01:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Sae-ron. 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) 12:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death

[edit]

Are there any official sources for the date of death? The ones linked in the article only mention she was found on that date but that may or may not mean she died on that day like the article claims.--2001:871:22B:9DC7:8474:2F93:9629:25B5 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not that I'm aware of, what you could see/find, is the same for us. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On her funeral urn, it says 16 February 2025, so, although the police didn't announce anything regarding the presumed time or an autopsy, it should be the date to be found on wikipedia, too. --Christian140 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There have been multiple report of her changing her legal name to "Kim Ah-im" some time before her death. I haven't looked into it further yet, but many some other person here has. [1][2] Lalalea (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are accounts from her friend. None of her family members has confirmed such information, which is rather contentious, so it's better to err on the side of caution. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ An, Tae-hyun (February 16, 2025). "故김새론 측근 "최근까지 복귀 얘기 나눴는데…'김아임' 개명은 오래전"" [The late Kim Sae-ron's close associates: "We talked about her comeback until recently... Changing her name to 'Kim A-im' was a long time ago"] (in Korean). News1. Retrieved February 17, 2025 – via Naver.
  2. ^ Kim, Ga-young (February 16, 2025). "[단독]김새론 측근 "최근 개명…카페 개업·연예계 복귀 준비했는데"" [[Exclusive] Kim Sae-ron's inner circle: "Recently changed name... preparing to open a cafe and return to the entertainment industry"] (in Korean). Edaily. Retrieved February 17, 2025 – via Naver.

Cause of death

[edit]

Reliable sources (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/17/world/asia/south-korea-actress-dead.html) now report her death was suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.182.24 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death paragraph

[edit]
"Kwon Young-chan, head of a civic group working to prevent suicide among public figures stated to reporters that Kim's father informed him that she was deeply affected by scathing content posted on social media that exposed parts of her private life."

I think this sentence should be removed. This is where the blame game begins, and I think every time it comes to suicide, more is less. There is almost never only one reason for a decision and we cannot know the cause. I think the father's statement is not notable. If you mention this, you easily get into rumor territory. --Christian140 (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's should be removed. While the information may have come from her father, I don't really think it's NPOV considering the potential emotional influence and biasness. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia policy saying that the source of a statement needs to be 'unbiased' for it to be reported. It is not reported as a fact, but simply as a statement - this is not a NPOV issue. Clearly her own father's thoughts as to what might have caused her suicide are relevant and notable and not just 'rumour territory'. It is important for readers to know that, and it is up to them whether to believe his view or not. The fact that there might be several factors contributing to a suicide does not mean that one of them should not be mentioned. It is also not true that someone's suicide is never caused to a large extent by the actions of someone else. The feelings of someone who might be blamed for a suicide are not enough reason to remove all suggestion of such a causation, especially given that it may indeed be present. On top of it all, the blame is impersonal in this case, concerning online commenters in general. Concealing such information from the readers would be censorship.--Anonymous44 (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE, WP:VNOT, WP:BLPCT applies hence not a matter of censorship. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is information regarding the subject, it is not a claim, and while it may be interpreted as 'biased' or 'emotional', it is nevertheless vital information relating to her and the causes leading to her untimely death. Removing it would be like removing the sections of Adolf Hitler's biography that concerned his life after the first world war and the 1920's on the ground that they are mostly revolving around 'emotion'. I do not agree at all that this should be removed. Sormando (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to Adolf Hitler is deeply inappropriate and does not reflect the sensitive nature of this situation. The core issue here is not censorship, but undue weight. The father's statement, while understandable, is a single perspective and risks oversimplifying the complex issue of suicide. Wikipedia policies, such as WP:UNDUE, WP:VNOT, and WP:BLPCT/WP:CTOP, guide us to present information in a balanced and neutral manner, and to err on the side of caution in contentious topics. Therefore, the statement should be removed or edited to reflect due weight; however my WP:BEFORE search found no supporting reporting related to the subject. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the connection to 'undue weight' here. It is a balanced and neutral parcel of information that she was affected by content posted on social media. It is certainly not biased nor unneutral to mention this, considering that the agency chief in question stated that the actress' family is considering litigation against unnamed social media influencers. Sormando (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of issues here. Firstly, Kwon (the head of a civic group working to prevent suicide among public figures) did not state "the actress' family is considering litigation against unnamed social media influencers". Kwon instead stated, "We plan to take legal action, including filing a complaint with the Press Arbitration Commission, to hold those responsible accountable", where "We" may be referring to his organization, despite relaying information from Kim's father. Most importantly, there are no WP:VERIFY materials explicitly confirming Kim's family's involvement in the potential lawsuit, assuming such risks going into WP:OR territory. Below is the full account from Kwon:

Kwon Young-chan, head of a civic group working to prevent suicide among public figures, said Kim's father told him at the funeral that certain YouTube videos exposing aspects of her private life had caused her significant distress. "We plan to take legal action, including filing a complaint with the Press Arbitration Commission, to hold those responsible accountable," Kwon said.

Secondly, that statement from Kwon, referencing Kim's father, is clearly is a single perspective per WP:UNDUE. Thirdly, where exactly is the due weight you mentioned? Lastly, to clarify, the NPOV issue we're discussing is about the presentation itself which is what WP:UNDUE is about, and should not be confused with the neutrality of the statement. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you take yourself very seriously.
Now to business; the statement regarding her family is not included in the article, though the statement related by Kwon regarding potential litigation should definitely be included in a future edit as it is relevant to the postmortem of the actress. I did not add that information earlier, and will get to it soon, though in any circumstance where we were talking like rational beings instead of ones that memorized a bunch of Wikipedia guidelines, we would be unanimous in agreement that Kwon is talking about her family here, and would not move forward with any legal action without the permission of her family.
Now back to the core of the matter; You still have not explained why Kwon's relations to what her father stated lacks 'due weight'. My previous analogue was a fitting one (notwithstanding the fact that you don't seem familiar with Godwin's law). It has as much 'due weight' as any legacy section in any biographical article. For example, Abraham Lincoln;
A Quote from Frederick Douglas, stating;
In his company, I was never reminded of my humble origin, or of my unpopular color.
— Frederick Douglas
The above quote is identically analogous to Kwon's relation from her father. It is a secondary / tertiary statement that informs the reader of aspects or things about the subject. Kim was struggling with social media backlash, this was true and can be inferred as a contributing factor to her untimely death. Lincoln was a good friend to Frederick Douglas, this is also true. The former is related from Kim herself, the latter is truly secondary as it is a quote from someone else about the subject, yet it is included in Lincoln's biographical article. I can spend all day hunting for analogous elements in other articles that can fit the same descriptor of 'lacking due weight', and many of them will be more secondary or tertiary in nature, yet all the same they are all important facts that inform the reader. Sormando (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My focus is on adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which is essential for maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. Personal attacks and dismissive tones are not productive. Assuming Kwon is acting with the family's permission is speculation. Wikipedia relies on verifiable information, not assumptions. The lack of WP:VERIFY materials remains a critical issue. It does not matter if it is rational to assume, Wikipedia is about verifiability. Even if it "makes sense" that Kwon is acting with permission, that is not how Wikipedia works. We must follow policy. The Lincoln/Douglass analogy is flawed; the context and reliability differ significantly. The core issue remains the lack of supporting reporting that would provide context to Kwon's statement, creating undue weight. Inferring social media backlash as a primary cause is problematic; Wikipedia requires evidence. Lastly, in case it's forgotten, this is a WP:BLP article which is a WP:CTOP not some random non-CTOP article. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to inform you that this baseless assumption now has hard confirmation in the form of an AP article published today.
To no one's surprise, Mr. Kwon's statement was spoken in behalf of her family. It does not occur anywhere that an agency moves forward with cases like this without a relative of the subject's permission.
As for the latter point, there is no more 'supporting reporting' than possibly could be. Kwon's statements are provided by verified sources, and is direct and relevant information stated on the actress' funeral. The analogy is fitting in context; both are posthumous statements that inform of the deceased subject's life, both are what could be defined as 'legacy', and both are backed up by strong and verified sources.
Yes I know you value the 'integrity of Wikipedia', which is why you would be wise to concede that removing information so relevant to the article would be destructive, not constructive to informing people. Sormando (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did clearly stated earlier "edited to reflect due weight" as an alternative option, in case you're missed out. Therefore, since there's now WP:DUE weight materials from AP, it should and must be added into the section to balance the currently undue weight presentation, thereby being "constructive to informing people". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section got way worse in the meantime. I am just repeating myself, but I think the whole paragraph should be removed. A whole paragraph that is just pointing fingers is just tactless in an article of a deceased. Most of the English language coverage is quite awkward and embarassing in my opinion, as it barely really is about Kim Saeron. And family members are not really a reliable source. You cannot know their relationship and how close they are, thus it is speculation. And it's all territory you do not want to get into. --Christian140 (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian140 I shared your stance, but @Sormando, who added the disputed material in revision 1276673406, strongly advocated for its retention. Perhaps we needed an univolved WP:3O then. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have no energy for this article. Maybe in a few months. At least, it is not a complete disaster right now. But I think Wikipedia should become slower and more sceptical. It is very likely that youtubers like Lee Jin-ho had a huge impact on Kims mental constition. Yet, it is one of many potential factors. Even if likely. Also, Kwon Young-chan and Lee Jin-ho have a history as Kwon Young-chan also has been targeted by Lee Jin-ho in the past. Yet, Lee Jin-ho is also linked to the suicides of Lee Sun-kyun and Choi Sung-bong. But I think there is no with all the blaming now. It feels like picking one possibilities out of many when we barely know anything. --Christian140 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2025

[edit]

Current (191010 Kim Sae Ron (김새론).png / link to image) image is AI-enhanced and should be reverted/replaced 183.171.112.18 (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments

[edit]

I think there are two things that should be looked into to improve the article:

1. The article cites BBC, stating "She was edited out of most scenes in the 2023 Netflix series Bloodhounds." I don't think this is true. Although before the release, the director said he would limit Kim's appearance to a minimum, after the release, he was criticised that Kim Sae-ron's role still clearly was a main role. And I think in the interview he said something like, how would have need to shot the whole series again as she always was meant to be one of the three main roles. So, the editing did not nearly happen. I think BBC did not research well.

2. Kim's urn has been moved from Paju to Anseong Utopia Memorial Hall where the third memorial service 삼우제 has been held on February 21. --Christian140 (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)  Done --Christian140 (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. Kim Sae-ron also volunteered for the blue angels from 2015 to 2023. https://www.vegannews.co.kr/news/article.html?no=38867 --Christian140 (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)  Done --Christian140 (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4. Especially Kim's 8 first roles have been studied intensively, in reports as well as in scientific papers. Even the term 새론-소녀 has been coined for her roles and roles that almost only Kim plays. It could be used to further expand the article. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002225373 --Christian140 (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Sae-ron&oldid=1278258111"