Talk:LG Cup (Go)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
29th LG Cup
[edit]Hi everyone, as you may know, there was a controversy over the recent three-game final match in which Ke Jie was disqualified in game 2 for violations of a certain rule and forfeited in game 3 after a dispute over the manner in which officials tried to enforce that rule again. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia policy requires neutral point of view, reliable sources, and especially careful attention to material about living persons. Wikipedia is not for advocacy.
The summary table here is to state the verifiable bottom line of who in fact was awarded with the wins. That was Byun Sang-il 2, Ke Jie 1, deservedly or not. We of course should not present the 2–1 result in isolation without important additional context on how and why. Indeed, some other editors already added a footnote with some explanation. It has much room for further improvement. (I may also edit it at some point but have not gotten around to it. I think in the end, material should be part of the main body of the article as a section or subsection rather than only a footnote.)
(Courtesy ping for EiichiGo who wrote to me at my talk page before.) Adumbrativus (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping and the lecture. I made the suggestion to write 0(2)-1 with a note: "Ke Jie won once and forfeited twice, Byun Sang-il did not win any regular game", and you did not react. Since the Chinese Weiqi Association disputes that the score is 2-1, just writing 2-1 seems to violate WP:NPOV. I think the suggestion gives a verifiable truth, and might avoid edit wars. EiichiGo (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize about the lecture part – it was not directed at you, but rather to other passerby, as the topic attracted new editors who may or may not be aware of policies.Regarding the bottom-line score summary, the sources are clear that it was 2–1; see e.g. Yonhap, The Beijing News, Nihon Ki-in. 0–1 is just catchy rhetoric; indeed, not even the Chinese Weiqi Association contested game 2. It is not neutral to summarize the score as 0(2)-1. That is false balance. We also must take into account the background bias of sources, such as potential pro-Chinese bias in Chinese commentators and pro-Korean bias in Korean commentators. So it's worth emphasizing that sources for 2–1 include Chinese and Japanese references. I hope that the article, which states that "The Chinese Weiqi Association did not accept the result of the third game" and that Ke Jie's losses were "by penalty and forfeit" (in games 2 and 3 respectively) clearly articulates the disputed and unusual nature of the results. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- You assume that "score" is a well-defined item, that can be determined by finding reliable sources. In my view "score" only has the usual meaning, let us say the dictionary meaning, and has several interpretations in unusual cases. We have an unusual case here, and have to be explicit about what the outcome of the three games was, also in the table.
- By the way, 29th_LG_Cup_World_Baduk_Championship_final_controversy has the text "The organizers announced that Byun Sang-il had defeated Ke Jie 2-1" and "In fact, this was the first Go game in history to be won with a score of 0-1."
- It is not the case that a score has two components only. E.g., in Meijin_(Go) scores 4–1–1 and 4–2–1 occur. EiichiGo (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are exactly what Wikipedia looks to, for this material and indeed all material. Your approach is called original research.The claim of "0-1" at 29th LG Cup World Baduk Championship final controversy is conspicuously also not backed by sources and should be removed.Lastly, your example from Meijin is true but irrelevant. Certainly it is possible for a game to officially end in neither a win nor a loss, such as a draw or triple ko. The question isn't whether it can happen, but whether it did. In the Meijin in 1980 and in 1998, sources evidently say there was a void game in the final score. In the LG Cup in 2025, sources evidently say there wasn't. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- You react without understanding what I said. Or perhaps we have different ideas about WP:OR. In this case the discussion is not about the facts, since all agree fully. All sources, reliable or not, say precisely the same. The discussion is about the meaning of the word "score". If A plays B and B resigns or loses on points or on time then A won and B lost. If according to schedule A should play against B but B is ill, or missed the train, so that no actual game was played, then for some purposes (e.g. for determining the progress of a tournament) A is deemed to have won, for other purposes (e.g. for counting wins or determining a rating) the non-game is not counted. In other words, there is a difference between "A won" and "A is deemed to have won". One has to qualify the word "score" in case there is a difference. EiichiGo (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- The notion that Byun didn't win but Byun was deemed to have won, or that he won for some purposes but not other purposes, is your own interpretation and analysis.
To state or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported
by sources, is original research. Sources plainly state the conclusion that Byun won two games. They didn't say the two games count toward this but don't count toward that; they say he won the two games.I respect if you're not persuaded, and appreciate the thorough and civil discussion. I think we understand each other, even if we don't agree with each other. I'll add a notice at Wikipedia:Third opinion to see if we can get an uninvolved editor's opinion. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)- O, my conclusions are explicitly supported by all reliable sources. They state that the Chinese Weiqi Association disputes the result of the third game. Giving that result as if there were no dispute is a violation of WP:NPOV. I still think that my above suggestion is correct and precise, while 0-1 and 2-1 are less precise and lead to edit warring. EiichiGo (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- The notion that Byun didn't win but Byun was deemed to have won, or that he won for some purposes but not other purposes, is your own interpretation and analysis.
- You react without understanding what I said. Or perhaps we have different ideas about WP:OR. In this case the discussion is not about the facts, since all agree fully. All sources, reliable or not, say precisely the same. The discussion is about the meaning of the word "score". If A plays B and B resigns or loses on points or on time then A won and B lost. If according to schedule A should play against B but B is ill, or missed the train, so that no actual game was played, then for some purposes (e.g. for determining the progress of a tournament) A is deemed to have won, for other purposes (e.g. for counting wins or determining a rating) the non-game is not counted. In other words, there is a difference between "A won" and "A is deemed to have won". One has to qualify the word "score" in case there is a difference. EiichiGo (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are exactly what Wikipedia looks to, for this material and indeed all material. Your approach is called original research.The claim of "0-1" at 29th LG Cup World Baduk Championship final controversy is conspicuously also not backed by sources and should be removed.Lastly, your example from Meijin is true but irrelevant. Certainly it is possible for a game to officially end in neither a win nor a loss, such as a draw or triple ko. The question isn't whether it can happen, but whether it did. In the Meijin in 1980 and in 1998, sources evidently say there was a void game in the final score. In the LG Cup in 2025, sources evidently say there wasn't. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize about the lecture part – it was not directed at you, but rather to other passerby, as the topic attracted new editors who may or may not be aware of policies.Regarding the bottom-line score summary, the sources are clear that it was 2–1; see e.g. Yonhap, The Beijing News, Nihon Ki-in. 0–1 is just catchy rhetoric; indeed, not even the Chinese Weiqi Association contested game 2. It is not neutral to summarize the score as 0(2)-1. That is false balance. We also must take into account the background bias of sources, such as potential pro-Chinese bias in Chinese commentators and pro-Korean bias in Korean commentators. So it's worth emphasizing that sources for 2–1 include Chinese and Japanese references. I hope that the article, which states that "The Chinese Weiqi Association did not accept the result of the third game" and that Ke Jie's losses were "by penalty and forfeit" (in games 2 and 3 respectively) clearly articulates the disputed and unusual nature of the results. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: I notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Go inviting comments from editors. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Third opinion
[edit]Hi, providing a third opinion here. Unless I'm missing something, I'm inclined to agree with Adumbrativus. If the official score of the game was 2-1 then that's what we should go with, and entering the score as 0(2)-1 is odd, confusing, and does appear to be original research. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know much about Go, but this was my reading as well. We go with what sources widely report. seefooddiet (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Reaction
[edit]"what sources widely report": so far I have not stressed this part, but both 0-1 and 2-1 are widely reported. Some examples of 0-1:
Hong Kong News, QQ News, Sohu, 163.com.
It is as if some part of Kashmir is claimed by both India, Pakistan and China, and WP writes "India" with a footnote "disputed by Pakistan and China". That is not the neutral description of the situation. In Kashmir soldiers die. Also in this case there are serious consequences. Instead of choosing sides it is better to report the facts. In this case one way to do so is writing "0(2)-1" with explanatory footnote. EiichiGo (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- There are several problems with reliance on those links. First, several appear to be user-generated with no editorial oversight (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources that are usually not reliable). For example, the news.qq.com link is a post by someone named 'I love the Premier League', not the view of Tencent / QQ News, and similarly for the posts at sohu.com and 163.com. Second, 0–1 is hyperbole for rhetorical effect, not fact. See zh.hk01.com ('0 wins 1 loss' alongside hyperbole describing Ke Jie as 'strangled' (绞杀) by the new rule, and accusing the Korean player of 'winning unfairly, winning without courage' (胜之不武) and the Korean side of 'discriminating' (偏袒) and '"black whistle" corrupt refereeing' (黑哨)), sohu.com ('0-1' alongside 'Park Bin knelt down' in a hit piece name-calling and attacking Chinese coach Yu Bin as a betrayer of his countryman). Third, see my previous comment emphasizing that sources for 2–1 include Chinese and Japanese references, which lends greater credibility than people from country X supporting country X. The sourcing falls far short of reliably establishing that 0(2)-1 should be the summary.Although I'm sure you didn't mean the comparison literally, the problems with the comparison to the Kashmir conflict are also illustrative. First, territorial disputes, in general, have no official authority. A Go tournament, on the other hand, has an official organizer and sponsor, who determine the official result. Second, to the extent that a particular nation has actual control over an area, both Wikipedia and external sources indeed can speak of the part under India's de facto control as Indian, without giving equal prominence to Pakistan's claim (and vice versa). See e.g. Jammu and Kashmir in States and union territories of India on Wikipedia, and Reuters [1]. The authorities who host a Go tournament and hand out the trophy at the end have actual control over it. Anyway, I won't dwell on Kashmir further, which has its own unique issues. In this article it strikes the right balance to place 2–1 in the table, and state the Chinese Weiqi Association's position which is in the footnote and the main article text. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I still feel that we are not communicating, that you do not understand what I am saying. Kashmir was an example with the two properties (i) WP does not want to choose sides, (ii) there are national sensitivities. Of course I did not want to discuss it any further. Also in the present case (i) and (ii) hold, in my opinion, but you choose the Korean side. I agree entirely that it is stronger for the moment, but I want to be completely neutral. Since our discussion does not make progress, let me leave it for the moment.
- It is interesting to see what is happening. Rumours I hear: China has decided that foreigners are no longer welcome with their tournaments, Korea has postponed their planned "Best player" tournament indefinitely, after China said that Ke Jie would not play there, Korea has withdrawn the rule that caused Ke Jie's losses. China insists on retraction of the stated result for the 29th LG Cup, but nobody knows precisely how this can work, since the prize money has been paid already. EiichiGo (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)