Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


SK-backed encyclopedias

[edit]

Essay on the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, Encyclopedia of Korean Folk Culture, Encyclopedia of Korean Local Culture, and Encyclopedia of Overseas Korean Culture. These are currently on the reliable sources list; I added them myself. I've used all four of these sources to a decent degree (the first one extensively; have used it several hundred times), and am the primary author for all four of their Wikipedia articles.

They're all WP:TERTIARY sources and carry that baggage, but considering South Korea has quite stiff paywalls for information, I'd argue we should rely on these sources often. They're often some of the best/only information freely available online for many historical topics.

On reliability, in my experience most articles in these encyclopedias are fine for broad information but decline in quality when it comes to details.

  • The writing can be imprecise (e.g. often speaking in present tense without dating claims, like "this restaurant is 20 years old" or "the restaurant currently can seat 30 people", while providing no indication of when the claim was written).
  • Details (namely dates) sometimes contradict information in other reliable sources (I ran into this a lot while creating the articles for this list). However, this seems to happen a lot in general for Korean studies; historiography is quite young in Korea, and it's still actively working on understanding especially its modern history.
  • Articles receive periodic updates, but the bulk of the articles (and especially photos) will be noticeably dated to when the encyclopedias were largely produced (1990s for the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, 2010s for the later ones).
  • Their budgets were seemingly often tight, and writers were reportedly expected to produce large amounts of content quickly. I often get a sense that they just left many threads hanging. I've not really encountered anything that seems egregiously "wrong" however; just little things.

For the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, I'd argue we should be wary on using it for contentious topics. For example, see Assassination of Empress Myeongseong#Japanese government involvement in the assassination (I wrote this). Some Encyclopedia of Korean Culture articles are seemingly clearly nationalistic and use emotional language. But on the other hand, other articles include information that is unflattering to Korea and seemingly nuanced and detatched.

Overall, I think they're not the best sources and should be used cautiously (as with any source), but they will often be near the best that we have for a huge number of situations, given paywalls. seefooddiet (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles from AKS-published encyclopedias vary drastically on tone and coverage depending on the author. Some are written in a balanced, matter-of-fact way while others sound as if Shin Chae-ho himself wrote it. The issue seems to be the worst with EKS.
One more thing. EKLC is not a single encyclopedia, but a collection of encyclopedias each specializing on regional topics. EKLC has several articles that have the same title but convey different information due to the topic having a different affiliation depending on the region. For example, there are two discrepant, separate articles for Jeonju Choi clan [ko] ([1], [2]). I noticed this while creating the list on Korean clans. While this may merely be an issue of extra research for editors fluent in Korean it may be worth noting for editors who rely on translator tools. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pressian

[edit]

Pressian is an independent news media founded in 2001. It initially started as a joint-stock company, but it shifted to "co-op journalism" system in 2013. This is not to say it recruits amateurs (like a lot of low quality Korean media), but it's that it strives to maintain independence for its reports.

The website offers About Us page, which is incredibly thorough. It has a lot to unpack, but to recap some points:

  • It has a list of virtually everybody working there, including individual journalists, executives, audits, and others. Helpful.
  • The website has introduction pages for each author like this, this, and this. Many of them list their prior journalism experience, like frequenting the Blue House, participating in various press conferences, etc. Overall, there're enough experienced employees to consider the staff credentials up to reasonable standards.
  • About Us details its editorial policy about how it runs and overviews articles, right down to organization chart.
  • It lists journalism awards it received, like relatively prestigious Sungkunho award in 2013.
  • The editor-in-chief is Jeonhonggihye (전홍기혜), who have reported politics and economics there since 2001. Interview on Mediaus

This seems trustworthy and I'd like to list this as reliable. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second this. I wrote Pressian's English-language Wikipedia article. Everything I've read from them has been very good; have read several dozen articles from them before. I think this will probably be uncontroversial, so I'll just add it to the list. seefooddiet (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged to response. I haven't actually use this source personally but looking through its reportings and also its disclosure, I have no objection to it being added to the WP:KO/RS#R list. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just hope new editors would have enough common sense to differentiate an article from an editorial (WP:RSEDITORIAL); Pressian has some of the most left-leaning editorials I've ever read. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

https://news.naver.com/

I think this should be added to the unreliable so that people stop putting this in articles. Naver News is a news aggregator and does not have editorial team of its own. Per WP:NEWSORG, the reliability is all on the original source, which is preferred over the aggregator. It is not hard to find the original source since Naver News always directly put its link on the article, yet too many articles source from Naver News.

Daum News (v.daum.net) is another aggregator guilty of this, though not as many. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm conflicted.
I don't like plainly listing "Naver News" in the ref, and think listing it as unreliable and tagging it may force people to fix it. But this would be heavily disruptive; probably Naver News is cited numerous times, often on pages that are unlikely to be fixed. Maybe worth? But maybe not; usually I've seen mostly RS being used by naver news
Yahoo News has similar issues in the West; see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and it's tagged as reliable, although I acknowledge they do have their own news team so maybe slightly different case.
I think news aggregators maybe aren't strictly speaking inherently unreliable.
What would really be nice is a bot that web scrapes the naver news page to find the news agency and then correctly populates the ref, but not sure how allowed by Wikipedia policy that is. I could probably code that but would need to do a lot of reading about integrating this kind of code with Wikipedia. I'll think abt it seefooddiet (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively Naver News and Daum News can be split from the reliable list and put under a new 'News Aggregator' header, with a disclaimer that their articles should be checked from the original source. The list is getting long now and I think it warrants a split in a situation like this. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also conflicted about this as some K-Dramas and K-pop related articles I created/edited/improved has some sources from Naver News. Also if we put Naver News as unreliable then it should be the same with Naver Entertainment and/or Naver Sports as per your logic. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 16:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naver News citations are easily fixable, since they always have a link to the original articles on top of their pages. I am not suggesting to remove them all. For the record, it's the button that reads '기사원문', right next to date. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same thoughts as Seafooddiet and Windborne Rider, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, I haven't come across any "pandemic" concerns on using Naver News (news.naver.com and/or m.entertain.naver.com) or Daum News pertaining to questionable accuracy and reliability otherwise that would have raises an alarm "century" prior. If required, resolve this by having a note on recommending the usage of |publisher= in addition to |via= or |website= on {{Cite web}} or {{Cite news}} when using either sources. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a monumental task, since Naver News already has a link to the original source and one only needs to redirect the citation to it. You just need to clink the button named '기사원문' and check the source. Replacing Naver News citation on Wikipedia articles with their original source on Wikipedia articles makes much easier to track their reliability. Adding the disclaimer and guide on the main page is worth it. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated in my initial reply, is it an issue(s) on accuracy and reliability to begin with? IMO, it isn't otherwise it would have been bought up multiple times here ago. I also don't see it as an issue with clicking "기사원문" which I know exists because there're certain sources (e.g. from my mind: topstarnews.net, bntnews.co.kr) that Naver give the direct link instead of the Accelerated Mobile Pages version because the direct link isn't setup for such. Coming from experience, the disadvantage of using direct link (especially concerning Korean news media) is the bombing of annoying ads to the reader (likewise us), this in turn hinders WP:LINKROT as Wayback Machine would confuse the ads as actual content returning incorrect archiving (an example using fuzzy edit summary search of my previous edits), an issue not found when using Naver News or Daum News. Due to these variables, as stated in my initial reply, is why I stated that we recommend using |publisher= when using either sources. We can either enforce it or do a search on which Naver News or Daum News that are missing |publisher= parameter and go fix it so the tracking concerns can be resolve, either which, I don't see the unnecessary efforts in doing so as I have pretty much sum in the starting sentence of my initial reply. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think there is some harm to only displaying "Naver News" or "Daum News", as it masks what source is saying things (which matters much more for articles about politics and history) and because if the link rots it hinders finding the original article.
    • It is mildly concerning that Naver News's republishing list includes OhmyNews and some strange sites like "헬스조선" and "코메디닷컴". But the majority of sites seem to be reliable.
    • Overall, I haven't noticed enough active harm to seriously worry me. I haven't seen basically any problematic editing that involved Naver News.
  2. I don't think it's strictly necessary to replace Naver News links with the original article link.
    • I don't have a strong opinion on Paper9oll's point about link rot and ads. It seems like a rare gain; think we're probably fine using either naver news or the original news link in >95% of scenarios.
My proposal:
  1. Put Naver News/Daum News somewhere on the RS page (they're not inherently reliable or unreliable, so maybe not in the table), with a note that these websites are just aggregators.
  2. We can lightly recommend people convert Naver News URLs to the original source, but an acceptable alternative is leaving the naver news link as it is, and asking them to put like |newspaper=The Dong-A Ilbo |via=Naver News.
seefooddiet (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are merits in using Naver News (such as ad issues brought up here) I wouldn't strictly oppose it, but yes, Naver News currently hosts both reliable and unreliable sources that make it difficult to judge their reliability.
I agree with seefooddiet's suggestion, though I reiterate that Naver News and Daum News should get a new seciton separate from other sources, with the section titled "News Aggregator". They are different in nature from the others, so separating them would easily inform editors of what they're dealing with.
For references, this is the comprehensive list of sources hosted on Naver News. I couldn't find the list for Daum News. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the Naver list, seemingly only OhmyNews (already discussed) and 코메디닷컴 (Comedy.com; noted as strange) being unreliable. 헬스조선 (Chosun Health) is actually part of the Chosun Ilbo hence is it considered as unreliable? Regardless, I'm okay with the proposal so long that Naver News nor Daum News is not restricted and/or enforced as unreliable and/or unacceptable. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll give adding these a shot seefooddiet (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized I could tag refs that only give Naver News and not the original publication as {{Full citation needed}}. I'll add that to my AWB script; you should start seeing these tags pop up on articles. seefooddiet (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Seemingly goes against what was discussed above i.e. unrestricted and/or unacceptable. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't go against above. To clarify, it'd be this: if a ref only has |publication=[[Naver News]], the "full citation needed" would request that they convert it to |publication=[[The Hankyoreh]] |via=[[Naver News]] instead. That aligns with our discussion above. It wouldn't be a request to convert the URL, if that's what you're thinking of. seefooddiet (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, thanks for the clarification. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newstapa

[edit]

Newstapa (link) is an independent, non-profit media organization run by Korea Center for Investigative Journalism. It was established in 2012, founded by journalists laid off during the Lee Myung-bak government. I already mentioned this news media earlier as one of the reliable sources, so I may as well start a topic about it.

It has a helpful About Us that details its activities, including its history page and award list.

The website has an English page, but it stopped at 2023. It runs a YouTube channel, but for the most part not suitable for citation because its contents are always available in text articles (and WP:NOYT)

With its generally high quality reports and widespread WP:USEBYOTHERS, I think this can land on reliable source. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read much from them before but flipping through it now seems reliable. Take my opinion with grain of salt; not much exposure. I would approve as listing as reliable, on good faith assumption of nominator's due diligence seefooddiet (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it to the list now seefooddiet (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source table done

[edit]

Recently a few users (@183.171.113.109/@183.171.101.65 and @Ïvana) contributed to finishing up the unreliable sources table; thank you!

I then filled out the discussion links.

  • These links are only comprehensive to discussions on this talk page and its archives. If you know of other discussions feel free to link.
  • I sometimes (but not always) searched and included WP:RS/P discussions. Every item that doesn't have any discussion threads I've verified don't have any on RS/P too. Pages with discussions on this talk page I didn't bother searching RS/P. Soompi and Allkpop I was more thorough on, because they're popular sources.
  • Several links are to WP:EL discussions, which cover why sites have been blacklisted from Wikipedia.

I also copyedited the table a bit. I changed some descriptions; if you disagree with my changes feel free to copyedit them or revert to previous state.

Next steps:

  1. Similar to WP:RS/P, we should merge the two tables into a single one, and give each source a reliability rating instead of just reliable/unreliable. Perhaps should just follow the ratings that RS/P uses.
  2. Some of our sources I think need to be discussed more; I've marked them with "needs discussion" (ctrl+f that phrase). I'm not sure how these would fit inside the rating system; ironically needs discussion.

seefooddiet (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum on Naver Blog: Naver manually approves some blogs as 'an official blog of an organization' and tags them with green checkmarks. For instance, Korea Meteorological Administration has an active Naver Blog with that checkmark on its profile. So I think articles might be able to cite those blog posts if it is official. But a lot of Naver Blog are promotional materials and not very formal, so its use should be careful and limited to axillary references.
This is a list of officially approved Naver Blogs if someone wants to find them. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the list. Going through these, many of these are basically still self-published and of varying reliability. You're right that a number of the blogs would probably be considered reliable if they were hosted on another platform though.
Fortunately, almost all of the uses of Naver Blog I've seen are from plainly unreliable sources. My AWB script just tags all uses of naver blog as "unreliable?", indicating uncertainty; I think I'll keep the script as is for now. People can delete the tag manually if they disagree. seefooddiet (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to a few more users for merging the tables: @Heh Sarerrr, @121.182.11.51, @59.3.138.47, @121.144.164.182.
Now we need to expand the reliability ratings. Is everyone ok if we adopt a modified version of WP:RS/P#Legend? I think our system should use the top three ranks: WP:GREL, WP:MREL, and WP:GUNREL. Didn't include WP:DEPREC or blacklisted because idt we have the authority to decide those on our own. We can still indicate if a source has been site-wide deprecated or blacklisted though.
For how to sort the existing sources:
  • All unreliable sources can be set as GUNREL by default, I think.
  • Reliable sources need to be set as either GREL or MREL. I think unless there's a warning message in the description or a "needs discussion" note, we can set it as GREL. Otherwise MREL.
Does the above sound good to others? Tagging WPK regulars: @Emiya Mulzomdao @Paper9oll @00101984hjw @RDWolfgang @RachelTensions @Windborne Rider @Dantus21 @CountHacker seefooddiet (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adopting WP:RS/P sounds good to me. Not sure whether WPK has "authority" on deprecation but I think WP:DEPREC may be necessary for housekeeping on sources like Naver Blog or Brunch. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that earlier; neither WordPress nor Medium are depreciated, nor do they have edit filter entries. I think those are the correct moves per [6] and WP:BLOGS: sometimes blogs from credible authors are reliable.
Think we'll just have to stick with manually dealing with those blog hosters. Fortunately I think cleaning those is not unmanagable: around 500 for naver blog and 40 for brunch. seefooddiet (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Love the new format; thanks guys.
Slightly unrelated (maybe) but I've noticed that all Naver News citations show up as light green in CiteHighlighter indicating "generally reliable" whether or not the actual news outlet appears in any reliable source list.
Has there been a consensus formed at some point that all outlets aggregated by Naver News (full list here) can be considered generally reliable? If not, then maybe we should start working through them to get them individually added to the list because they seem to be very frequently cited. RachelTensions (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also courtesy ping for @Novem Linguae to let them know that the format of the WP:KO/RS tables are changing, in case anything needs to be done with their CiteHighlighter script. RachelTensions (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the outlets in Naver News have been evaluated, but we already know that a few of them are unreliable.
Naver News shouldn't show up as green in CiteHighlighter; ideally it should have no color as it's not fundamentally reliable or unreliable. seefooddiet (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The table is great, thanks @Seefooddiet, @Ïvana, @Heh Sarerrr, and to those IP users. And yes I like your idea Seefooddiet. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 22:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think condensing the tables into a single one to reflect the system used in WP:RSP is a great idea. This approach would also encourage us to discuss each source; in fact, it should be a requirement for inclusion in the table. And I like the proposed sorting logic. - Ïvana (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! However, why is there suddenly "Needs discussion" on some of the obvious unreliable sources? For those "Needs dicussion" on non-RS, should we do it now? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put "needs discussion" on sources that didn't have an adequate written description or discussion of why they are unreliable. I often didn't look at the actual website before I did so; I just did this out of haste.
If you'd like to either write in a better description for the obvious sources, or start discussions for sources, you're welcome to! seefooddiet (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, if I have some spare time, will consolidate down all of the "Need discussion" to one-shot discuss on it, at least it isn't seemingly at a limbo stage. Wouldn't mind if someone volunteer on this. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the legend is good, but is there any plan for creating sub-sections? Combining the list of legacy print media with unrelialbe internet sources feels odd. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's what WP:RS/P does. Granted, we don't always have to follow what they do. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? seefooddiet (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Not sure) Perhaps we could include a column or a tag in the existing table to indicate the type of source (e.g., 'print,' 'online') for added clarity?
P.S.- the table looks great! and the reliability rating system sounds good to me. RDWolfgang (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you like the page, and thanks for the suggestion! I think the column would be too difficult to populate for relatively little gain; most Wikipedia readers use nearly exclusively online sources, and we'd would need to research which papers are still in print and which aren't. Also assumption of source being, at the very least, online is there due to URLs. seefooddiet (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd separate legacy newspaper and television media that predate the internet age. They tend to be more consistently reliable than the rest. This would include...
Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they're all receiving the same "generally reliable" label that other non-legacy sources are getting I don't see the need to put them into a separate list RachelTensions (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, don't think we should put in separate list. At best we can indicate in description that it's a legacy source, but otherwise don't think separating out will help seefooddiet (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People are free to start converting the table to the new rating system btw, think the approval for it is clear. I'm travelling rn so may not get around to it for a while seefooddiet (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did the conversion seefooddiet (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Would it be useful to also add a "Use" column replicating the table over at WP:RSPSS? I could help with that. - Ïvana (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be helpful, thanks 🙂 seefooddiet (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll add it tonight then . - Ïvana (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that's missing is coloring for each row. I'm not sure how WP:RS/P handles it; I think it may be a property of the table that's programmed somewhere else (table type has "perennial-sources" in it). We could color rows manually instead, I think because our table is smaller not as difficult to do and maintain. seefooddiet (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I’ve encountered some issues that I need assistance with. I'm having trouble to implement Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources/styles.css on revision 1261705706. Heh Sarerrr (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. It's pretty far out of my expertise.
[7] related to this I think. For some reason that CSS page is being parsed as normal text instead of a code page; compared it to the RS/P CSS page that has the code box.
I think you should ask for help somewhere. The Wikipedia discord has a technical help channel where you could ask for help. They're pretty reliable for this kind of help. Again I'm traveling, otherwise would do it myself seefooddiet (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heh Sarerrr  Fixed — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Paper9oll. Heh Sarerrr (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women News

[edit]

This is a print news media that started in December 1988. Its coverage are women-related topics, and it runs numerous events associated with them, as shown in this history page and this "major business" section.

Women News is a member of Journalists Association of Korea. Its About Us mentions the existence of the editorial board in the organization and a few partnerships like Women & Culture in Network. It has some English articles, but they stopped around 2017.

They claim to have a proper editorial team and have been around over three decades, predating the internet age. I think it could be reliable, but I found it lackluster compared to other mainstream media. It doesn't mention any major awards, for example. I also couldn't find any notable exclusive reports or journalists that worked for it recently. Personally, I'd only use it for women-related articles, and preferably with other more reliable sources.

How is this media spelled, "Women News", "WomenNews", "Womennews", or "Women's News"? It doesn't look consistent. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to use "The Women's News" on their English website logo. [8]
I think I mostly agree with your take; I've been unimpressed by some of their articles. I've read maybe around 15-20 of their articles or so. It's hard to describe or give examples of why I'm unimpressed. The prose is lower quality, they sometimes pull quotes from social media and don't really attribute it [9], and they do a poorer job than more mainstream newspapers at separating fact and opinion. Their translated articles seem really poorly translated too: [10][11]
I'd say it can be used, but with caution. I don't really feel comfortable calling it reliable; it's probably not unreliable though. seefooddiet (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the English version is not usable. I'd mark this source "unclear" and add that each article must be examined carefully before using it on articles. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll go ahead and add it. seefooddiet (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be evaluated

[edit]

Questionable probably

RFC. I'm not sure what I'm trying to achieve at the moment but I'm listing S. Korean news that are not present on the table 59.12.127.61 (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you meant to discuss instead of an actual WP:RFC which doesn't applies in this case since it wasn't WP:RFCBEFORE. Regardless, I don't find the 4 sources (minus Dispatch) questionable to be included as reliable status. However, for Korea Now, as it's part of Yonhap News Agency, I believe that anything published from 2019 to 2021, if applicable, would have a similar cautionary usage status as its parent. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the first two. I think MBC has had its fair share of scandals, but I would need to read into them.
[12] I've been consistently annoyed at the sensationalization Korea Now employs. Goes out of its way to make things seem more grizzly or scandalous. It also reports a decent amount of celebrity gossip, with a lack of care around headlines. I don't think it's unreliable (doesn't really notably report falsehoods), but we should treat it skeptically. Agree with Paper9oll on same caveats with YNA, although I think unlikely it was as involved in those scandals. seefooddiet (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the previous IP user, I want to add:

Don't have a particular opinion on the websites above but often see it got cited in BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:e68:4477:d783:8c5d:f410:71af:b0d (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to Marie Claire Korea. However sceptical on Cinefox as raised above. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also as a suggestion I think you should propose fewer sources at a single time. These requests require research; ideally we should only add sources to our list after having looked at each of them carefully, as each RS addition is effectively an endorsement from us. In uncertainty, I think it's better to endorse fewer sources than more. seefooddiet (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of these sources raised, I'm going to add Korea Now as yellow (additional considerations apply). This matches the status of Yonhap News Agency, its parent news agency seefooddiet (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OhmyNews - official staff

[edit]

Ohmynews is already labeled unreliable because most articles are written by citizen journalists. But what about the ones written by its official staff? I couldn't find a discussion about these specifically.

I did some digging and found out how to read the official staff articles. Ohmynews has a staff list page and if you click on magnifying glass buttons, you can find helpful links to the articles written by each of its official journalist. Could these be reliable? I'll need to do extensive research about their credentials, but this is difficult because Ohmynews does a really poor job at separating their own official media from other non-professional articles. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the source is probably somewhere in between WP:MREL and WP:GUNREL, difficult to say. Its articles by staffers are probably just as reliable as articles in other newspapers, but its non-staff writers aren't reliable.
[13] this is an article by a staffer, and [14] this is an article by a citizen college student. You can click on their username (장유진(spongejyj)) to see their profile. Maybe this would help with determining reliability, but it's honestly so much work for a source where I think a significant majority of articles are written by non–staff members. We could put in the description that the source may sometimes be reliable if the identity of the author has been verified. Note that this is functionally close to how WP:BLOGS work; author matters. Does that sound good?
Overall, I think our listing the source as unreliable is probably more correct than not. seefooddiet (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ohmynews has had a consistent editorial team for their staff for decades according to the staff page, so I would suggest their official staff articles can be reliable if their experience can be identified and trusted. But this is honestly very difficult for non-fluent editors, so I suggest marking Ohmynews as "unclear", add the staff list page I linked above, and add a disclaimer ("If unsure, do not cite this media." or something similiar). Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make changes to this effect. seefooddiet (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Naver News very frequently used to find web sources and not all of them have been discussed and evaluated. I figured I'd go through the list of sources that Naver News pulls from and see which ones are evaluated and which ones need discussion.

Note there are some that aren't explicitly included in the list of reliable sources but I've labelled them as "evaluated" because of their close association with sources that do appear in the list.

The list is categorized as they appear in on Naver News. Naver News list of sources

Sources already evaluated

Evaluated

[edit]

General

[edit]

Broadcast/Communication

[edit]

Economy

[edit]

Internet

[edit]

IT

[edit]

None

Magazines

[edit]

Professional magazines

[edit]

Regional

[edit]
Sources not yet evaluated

Not evaluated

[edit]

General

[edit]

Broadcast/Communication

[edit]

Economy

[edit]

Internet

[edit]

IT

[edit]

Magazines

[edit]

Professional magazines

[edit]

Regional

[edit]

Maybe we could go category by category and discuss, starting with the "general" category, which is only Munhwa Ilbo? RachelTensions (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe if somebody sees anything on the list that could outright be called out as unreliable (or uncontroversially reliable) we could pick them off with a quick discussion (especially Yonhap News TV, Maeil Broadcasting Network, and TV Chosun - can we determine if them simply being majority owned by a reliable parent is enough to include them by default? (Yonhap and TV Chosun are around 20-30% ownership by their reliable parents) RachelTensions (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these sources requires a decent chunk of research to verify reliability. We could just rely on personal experience or impressions, but I'd rather we be more thorough; I almost classified ohmynews as reliable ages ago because I didn't know much about it. Unfortunately I'm traveling rn otherwise would dedicate time to it seefooddiet (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch

[edit]

Dispatch (link) is an online news media founded in 2010. Its coverage is mostly limited to entertainment industry, but it occasionally extends to some other general topics.

About Us is not very helpful, some blurbs about itself and highlight its exclusive reports. It does a lot of exclusive reports, however. Many of them are celebrity news, such as dating rumors, but they generally have been pretty accurate. The recent news about Jung Woo-sung having a son with Moon Ga-bi was first leaked by them, and this was confirmed true. [15]

Dispatch is a member of Journalists Association of Korea. It received a couple of "This month's journalist" awards from it: one for Jeon Cheongjo's scam exposure and one for reports about Bithumb scam.

This is a mixed bag. Dispatch has decent coverage in some topics and has earned some awards, but the media is sensationalist by nature, which hasn't gone unnoticed by other media. (Money Today, The Hankyoreh (explicitly calling it "yellow journalism")) The lack of mention of editorial policies is also questionable. My suggestion is that it might be reliable, but its contentious claims on BLP articles would violate WP:NOTSCANDAL without being cited with other reliable sources. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would file Dispatch under the same category as TMZ... (see WP:TMZ) Some consider it to be generally reliable, but better quality sources would be preferred if available.
Like TMZ, Dispatch publishes a lot of exclusive reports without naming their sources, however they seem to have a fairly steady track record of their exclusives turning out to be accurate, which suggests they do indeed have fact checking standards and some form of journalistic integrity and aren't just publishing fabricated nonsense.
My opinion is that Dispatch is a perfectly reliable source for non-extraordinary claims (general entertainment news), but any extraordinary claims (ie. most of their exclusives) should be explicitly attributed to Dispatch, if they're used at all. RachelTensions (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both your assessments. Comparison to TMZ is good I think. Think the no consensus rating would be appropriate, with comments explaining these caveats seefooddiet (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying that it probably wouldn't technically be a "no consensus rating" per sé; we (currently) seem to have consensus that the source is generally reliable in some circumstances but additional considerations apply.
Still a yellow rating regardless though. RachelTensions (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, thanks seefooddiet (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the yellow rating. Needs other secondary reliable sources to confirm its claims. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding at yellow seefooddiet (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Munhwa Ilbo

[edit]

Starting a discussion on Munhwa Ilbo, which is currently the only outlet aggregated in the "General" category of Naver News that hasn't been reviewed for WP:KO/RS.

Website: http://munhwa.com
Relevant policies: https://munhwa.com/service/guide_gochoong.html, https://munhwa.com/service/guide_gochoong_sub.html

  • Owned by Hyundai Group until 1997.
  • In 2007 criticized for publishing nude photos for which they were forced to apologize [16]
  • In 2017 they were implicated in the Samsung bribery scandal when it was revealed that the managing editor of Munhwa Ilbo asked Samsung's top lobbyist for financial favours in exchange for positive reporting. [17]

Still seems to have close ties to Samsung, though I'm unsure what the nature of their relationship is exactly – they have logos for Samsung and KCC Corporation on the bottom of every page of their website. RachelTensions (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The website has an About Us which covers a brief history of itself. The publisher start as Hyundai Munhwa Ilbo in 1991 when it was owned by Hyundai, and changed its name to Munhwa Ilbo in 1999.
It is a member of Journalists Association of Korea, but I can't find any awards for the media except once in 2004. According to this and this article, Munhwa Ilbo got sanctioned and suspended from the press room for 1 full year, because of breaking embargo on North Korean spy. It's a bad sign.
I can't find famous exclusive reports from it or mainstream media citing the media. This, the lack of editorial team on its About Us, and several cases of felony over the years suggest this media is unreliable. I would not cite this most times. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red unreliable? Or yellow? Currently 277 uses on Wikipedia: [18]. If we did yellow we could add caveats instead of a blanket unreliable rating. I'm not sure what would be best. seefooddiet (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally leaning toward red. Its habitual violation of journalism standards outweighs its merits, which are few to begin with. From what I've seen, Munhwa Ilbo don't have much exclusive articles except editorials, with no real field reporting, so its exclusion won't be a huge loss. Its citations can be easily replaced with more reliable sources. Perhaps citations of uncontroversial, non-BLP articles can stay. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with yellow. Seems fine for general coverage, but other sources should be used for extraordinary claims. Given what seems to be a close relationship with Samsung I wouldn't trust them to be objective on any reporting in relation to Samsung or any of their competitors.
Munhwa Ilbo is cited fairly frequently by other sources that have been established as reliable, see: Washington Post, Variety, NME, The Korea Times, The Hankyoreh RachelTensions (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd prefer yellow as well. Flipping through uses of the source on Wikipedia, almost all uses are on topics that would be harmless. While we could probably replace much of these uses, it just seems like a lot of work for little gain, when most of the uses are probably fine. seefooddiet (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If others find values in Munhwa Ilbo I wouldn't strictly object it, but I still maintain it's on the lower end of the scale when it comes to reliability. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll add to yellow for now, but open to motions to demote it further to unreliable. seefooddiet (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting sources by caveats

[edit]

Recently one or more IP users split entries for a couple of sources based on caveats. [19] E.g. There are now two entries for The Chosun Ilbo. Is this needed? I don't think WP:RS/P does this; I feel like this defeats the purpose of having caveats in the first place.

I think it's ok if a bunch of our sources are yellow; the reality is that SK journalism has a decent chunk of issues, and most people should be skeptical of all sources anyway. seefooddiet (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the person editing that. It's actually based on WP:RS/P. See this here 121.154.174.41 (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah you're right, thanks seefooddiet (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UGC and other unreliable sources

[edit]

Bringing up explicitly unreliable sources that don't need a lengthy discussion. I don't think most of these are worth listing because they're either defunct or only used sparingly, but I'm posting this to prevent someone potentially pushing this.

  • Daum Blog (blog.daum.net): WP:UGC, just like Naver Blog. Defunct in 2022.
  • Egloos (www.egloos.com): UGC. Defunct in 2023.
  • Newspic (newspic.kr): Looks like a news website, but it's a user-generated content farm living on clicks.
  • PPSS (ppss.kr): Advertisement wordpress blog disguised as a news website.
  • Namunews (namu.news): Spun off from Namu. It's not a news aggregator, but a pseudo-internet forum stealing articles from other media, mostly from Yonhap.
  • Coupang News (news.coupang.com or coupang.com): Coupang's press release blog.
  • Daum Cafe (cafe.daum.net): Forum portal. UGC, like Naver Cafe.
  • CHZZK (chzzk.naver.com): Livestreaming website.
  • Naver Dictionary (dict.naver.com): Online dictionary. This consists of both profesional dictionaries and UGC without much separation. Naver Dictionary notes which information is sourced from which dictionary, so I recommend using that original source, instead.
  • KakaoStory (story.kakao.com): Social media.
  • AfreecaTV (afreecatv.com) / SOOP (sooplive.co.kr): Livestreaming website.

Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything, except unsure about Naver Dict. We can either:
  1. Treat it like a news aggregator situation, where it's not fundamentally reliable or unreliable. Then tell people to do {{Cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=[[Standard Korean Language Dictionary]] |via=[[Naver Dictionary]]...
  2. Treat it as unreliable and make people convert to the underlying dictionary (probably the Standard Korean Language Dictionary in most cases).
Which is better? seefooddiet (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing Standard Korean Language Dictionary through Naver Dictionary might be necessary, as the former doesn't support individualized URL for words on official website. That should do if there's no other workaround. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll modify the news aggregator section to add this. May code something up in AWB that tags any uses of Naver Dictionary with a request to include |via=. Fortunately only 112 uses of Naver Dict, so not a crazy extensive problem. seefooddiet (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. We should also consider classifying dictionaries as well. For example, Urimalsaem is an interesting case. seefooddiet (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Urimalsaem accepts user-generated contents. The official website is even run like a wiki, with history tab. The website technically marks which pages are authorized by experts and which are not, but I can't find how the editorial policy is done (for example, who these "experts" are; the editor name in history tabs is simply credited as NIKL without individual names). I'm not sure if Naver Dictionary actually distinguishes between UGC and official contents, either. I would say Urimalsaem is not acceptable as a source for now unless these issues can be resolved. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another note, many of the entries seem to be unsourced (e.g. unsourced definition vs sourced definition).
I think we should probably consider it unreliable, but still not sure. I think the information is probably accurate nearly 100% of the time and it doesn't neatly fit under UGC because basically everything on it that's user-facing has been reviewed by admins. Minimal harm whatever we do; it's only cited on Wikipedia like twice. seefooddiet (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna add these unreliable sources to the list seefooddiet (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emiya Mulzomdao Wait is newspic user generated? It seems to be more of a news aggregator. It lists the underlying source being referenced on each article. E.g. [20] is from 엑스포츠뉴스. Matches this [21].
If, by UGC, you were thinking of these pages, [22][23], I think these refer to having a recommendation algorithm based on user activity. The articles themselves are all actual articles I think.
I don't think we should classify this source yet; it's just a news aggregator to my understanding. seefooddiet (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UGC isn't quite accurate, since the articles are genuine, but Newspic is an impression-based user revenue website. The website's entire purpose is that users share their link on social media for some quick money. As far as I know, affiliate links like Newspic are considered spam on Wikipedia and generally prohibited. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to handle. Considering it's only used 8 times on Wikipedia may not be worth detailed thinking.
  • If we ignore the sharing aspect, the articles on the website are all genuine, functionally making the site a news aggregator.
  • However, considering the underlying sources receive money from this, maybe they'll tailor their coverage to cater to the algorithm to boost their own revenues. But this is just speculation, we'd need evidence of this.
If it's ok with you, I think we could abstain from classifying it at all, and just considering it a news aggregator. We could focus our time thinking about more impactful sources. seefooddiet (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similar comment for Namu News; not straightforward imo, maybe just avoid classifying for now. 2 uses on Wikipedia seefooddiet (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Newspics is not frequently used to be worth listing. While at it, I'll replace them with less controversial sources since BLP articles don't allow contentious materials.
Namunews, on the other hand, I can attest it's 100% illegitimate since it's not registered at MCST's database, which is required by law for periodical literatures, including news aggregator. It is a bogus. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with putting namu as unreliable. Used so few times currently, so either way I think we're fine. seefooddiet (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly Chosun

[edit]

Starting discussion for the magazine Monthly Chosun (I wrote the Wikipedia article for it).

My interactions with it have primarily been through its writings on history. In general, its history writings are among the best I've seen in any South Korean publication. Academic quality; normally such quality is paywalled, but thankfully it's still all free. I've read much of Spit on My Grave and Syngman Rhee and Kim Ku (wrote both these articles), both of which were published serially in the magazine. Both are impressive, sprawling history books, although the former has its share of problems (see that article and Cho Gab-je for context). I've also read probably several dozen other history articles by other writers, and they've all been excellent. Nuanced writing, with good and bad said about both Korean historical figures and Korea as a whole.

Monthly Chosun broke a number of major investigative journalism stories in South Korean history, although I'm less sure of what its current reputation is. I've seen claims that its current events reporting is right-wing; I didn't get that feeling from its history writings (other than those of Cho Gab-je), but considering Cho Gab-je's longtime prominent role in the magazine and his wingnut right-wing outbursts I'd believe it. His videos on YouTube are crazy.

It's had a number of scandals over the years. Other than the ones I wrote about in the Wikipedia article, there's this one in 2023 about them mistakenly alleging that a suicide note/will by a union leader was forged; they issued an apology and retracted the story [24].

Overall I'd rate it yellow, reliable but with caveats. I think its reporting on current events is probably biased right-wing, but its writings on other topics I've had no reason to doubt the accuracy of. seefooddiet (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly Chosun is published by Chosun News Press, also behind almost all of Chosun's major print media that isn't The Chosun Ilbo. I think it's safe to assume what happens at Chosun News Press also concerns here.
Unfortunately, the web version doesn't have About Us or other information about its editorial policy, despite all the articles on it. To learn about this might just require having to read either physical or e-book copy (the latter is 6,500 Korean won here, so at least it isn't expensive). This will have to wait.
Monthly Chosun is home to a lot of journalists; former Newsis president Kim Hyun-ho was also a president of Monthly Chosun [25], and EBS vice president Kim Seongdong was also once a president here. Speaking of Cho Gab-je, he was also a president from 1990 to 2004.
Looking at the magazine articles themselves, I agree it is high quality for most topics. I think they're essentially extended articles from its daily reports.
Some other articles written about Monthly Chosun (some of them are from Media Today, famous for its criticism of Chosun media)
  • [26] - Media Today claiming that Monthly Chosun glamorized Daewoo Group in July 1996 issue
  • [27] - Media Today criticizing the magazine for publishing misleading articles about National Institute for Unification Education in July 1998 issue
  • [28] - Moon Joon Yong, son of Moon Jae-in, criticizing the magazine in 2020 for taking advantage of his private life
  • [29] - Democratic Party suing Chosun over its June 2024 article on Kim Jung-sook's overpriced airline food, which the party claims is not true
Personally, I think it's about as reliable as The Chosun Ilbo. The media is generally sound, but its coverage tends to become more erratic whenever Korean societal issues (for example, North Korea) are involved. Its exception claims about these matters should be treated carefully. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly adding stuff to list, feel free to hop in anyone else. seefooddiet (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CiteHighlighter

[edit]

I just updated the CiteHighlighter script's list of Korea-related sources. This script highlights sources in articles using our color-coding system. The script should hopefully get updated soon; think the maintainer is currently fairly active.

Anyone is free to edit the CiteHighlighter list. Feel free to modify it yourself in future after we change WP:KO/RS. seefooddiet (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know why Naver News always shows green? RachelTensions (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asked User talk:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter#Korea-related older sources still showing as green seefooddiet (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul Shinmun

[edit]

Seoul Shinmun (link) is the oldest ongoing newspaper media in the country, established in 1904. This page covers its page starting from the early 20th century to the 2020s.

The media's awards are plenty. It's a member of Journalists association of Korea, and won This Month's Journalists awards. ([30], [31]) It received the journalist award from Amnesty International several times. (2020, 2022, 2024) Also won Kwanhun Journalism award in 2018. [32]

Seoul Shinmun has been in turmoil since 2021, when Hoban Construction became the controlling shareholder. Namely, approximately 50 Seoul Shinmun articles that spotlighted Hoban's affairs from July to November 2019 were deleted from the online version in 2022 without notice. ([33] [34]) 20 of them were published in the first page of the print versions, so it is quite huge. I checked again, and the articles still did not return to the online version. There are reliable sources warning that Seoul Shinmun is in decline after the acquisition (SisaIN, Newstapa); Newstapa also claims Hoban tried to meddle with their reports on Hoban by abusing connections with Seoul Shinmun.

The recent acquisition by Hoban and its aftermath are concerning, and Wikipedia shouldn't source this media for anything related to it, but I think its generally decent editorial standards didn't deteriorate yet. As you can observe, Seoul Shinmun won awards after 2021. Further development on Hoban remains to be seen. For now, I think the media would be generally reliable before 2021, and is only reliable after 2021 when topic doesn't concern Hoban. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • [35] an allegation that Seoul Shinmun has been using its prominence in the city to pressure local govts in Seoul to subscribe to the paper.
  • [36][37] Here's an ongoing dispute since 2022 between the mayor of Gangbuk District and Seoul Shinmun. The Gangbuk District govt alleged that Seoul Shinmun was published negative things about the mayor because he greatly decreased subscription volume to the newspaper. Gangbuk brought their subscriptions to 0 by 2024. The conflict is apparently pretty petty; the two parties verbally spar and Seoul Shinmun stopped reporting at all on Gangbuk District. [38] Here it retracted several articles about Gangbuk District that were found to be untrue.
I think I'd support a yellow classification for Seoul Shinmun. Mostly reliable, but use caution for its coverage of local Seoul governments, especially that of Gangbuk District beginning in 2022, and for articles related to Hoban Construction around the time of its acquisition. seefooddiet (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with yellow class. I would emphasize that these recent controversies came up after 2021, and before it there is no known significant issue. This paper was around over 100 years, so I think this is necessary to add. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the 100 year claim I don't really buy it. I wrote the articles for The Korea Daily News, Maeil sinbo, and Seoul Shinmun. I also wrote List of newspapers in Korea and History of newspapers in Korea.
Each transition, from the Korea Daily News to Maeil sinbo to Seoul Shinmun, resulted in a basically brand new newspaper. Basically complete staff turnovers.
For comparison, many major current South Korean newspapers were founded during the colonial era as Japanese or pro Japanese publications. Thus, the modern South Korean descendants try to distance themselves from that part of their history, and give their starting dates as like 1945/1946. They could embrace their descent in order to seem even older, but that would mean embracing ugly history. The only reason Seoul Shinmun embraces Maeil sinbo is because it gets to claim descent to an even older, prestigious newspaper: The Korea Daily News.
tl;dr I don't think the paper's claimed age is meaningful, purely a cynical decision for its own reputation. seefooddiet (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're to take its claim conservatively, its current incarnation was established around 1959-1961, which was when the paper dropped Maeil Sinbo brand and reset the issue number. I think this still makes its history quite long (about 60 years), longer than some mainstream media like The Hankyoreh. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
boldly modified entry, still open to discussion seefooddiet (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources&oldid=1265462950"