Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources/Archive 1

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

Allkpop, Soompi and BNT News

[edit]

This has been discussed twice in the noticeboard and the consensus was that it's unreliable.

There has been previous discussions about the validity of this site as a source, at the reliable sources noticeboard, best represented by the discussions: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_121#allkpop.com and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_125#Allkpop_and_Soompi, mostly with a consensus that it's unreliable.

— User:Kkj11210

There are a lot of articles who use them and I propose that we make a group effort to replace them with reliable sources. If they (Allkpop and Soompi) are the only site that reported it, what should be done?

What is everybody's thoughts about BNT News? ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 16:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about Allkpop, Soompi and other English K-pop news blogs on Talk:K-pop. My stance is still the same, there is no evidence that their news reporting, translated from Korean sources would be unreliable per se. If they provide the original Korean source, that should be used. Opinion articles and blunt yellow press articles on scandals (who dated who) should not be used as sources. They report on awards ceremonies, for example, I don't see why that wouldn't be reliable, since they watch the event on TV and report about it, that's it. There are also self-reported articles like which celebrity appeared on which TV show and when certain music videos were released etc. Those are also OK, in my opinion. All in all, the article itself should be examined and if there is no reason to think they misreported, why shouldn't we use them? They are the fastest English sources on K-pop, though Mnet's MWAVE and occassionally bigger papers like Korea Times and the Korea Herald also report on K-pop news, increasingly so, since it became so popular nowadays. But when no other source is available for the same statement, I would say Allkpop, Soompi and others should not be discarded. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 09:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First batch

[edit]

These are sites seem to me to be reliable but I wanted feedback before adding to the list.

However, these sites I am not sure at all even though I found them on Girls Generation.

  • Koreaboo [5] - A website focused on reporting the latest gossip and news related to K-Pop (Found here:[6])
  • Soshified [7] - Provides the latest news and media for Girls Generation

Just let me know which ones seem unreliable and if you have sources not on the list that you would like to share. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 18:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soshified is a fan site of Girls Generation. I would not use that, and any other fansites, either. If they give the original source, it should be used instead. Sometimes I do mention them with small letters, like I did in case of a couple of Big Bang sources, that translation (of a direct quote for example) was taken from bigbangupdates.com. These were almost exclusively translations of interviews. But fortunately many bigger fansites properly credit their sources with links. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 09:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My list of reliable sources

Teemeah 편지 (letter) 09:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I'll add those two sites to the list as well. And will add any sources of Teemeah that aren't already on it too. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 18:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, done the listing, as requested Teemeah 편지 (letter) 22:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two more sources to add to the "Unreliable Sources" section

[edit]
  • Daily KPOP News [8] - A third-party news site that reports relevant K-pop news in English, mostly from other News Sources.
  • Officially Kmusic [9] - A third-party news site that reports relevant K-pop news in English, mostly from other News Sources. In addition, many of the articles are written by fans, and often not neutral (ie: sometimes biased towards BTS or GOT7).

Also, I've been following these two sources on Facebook and sometimes I feel like they operate like fansites themselves. Plus, I've seen these sources used in articles, which I have had to change a few of them in the past. Tibbydibby (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tibbydibby. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 16:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is KpopStarz reliable

[edit]

I don't see KpopStarz mentioned here as reliable or unreliable. It appears as reliable to me. It does name its writers and the staff list appears credible: Kpop Starz - About Us

Opinions? BashBrannigan (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know...hmm..it reads more like a news site than a blog like Allkpop, soompi or Soshified. I guess better opinions will come along soon. It'd be nice to have at least one more resource to add to the list. Mikepellerintalk 03:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I'm undecided about it but I'll check it out. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 21:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never had a problem cross-referencing its articles and it seems to be true to that "About Us" page Asdklf; (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about...

[edit]
  • joynews.inews.com
  • thegamenews.com
  • newsen.com
  • chosun.com
  • gamemeca.com

I was wondering about these as I've seen them on numerous pages. Mikepellerintalk 07:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, newsen.com and chosun.com is news site, which chosun.com is site of Chosun Ilbo. — Revi 05:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Korea.com and Mwave forums

[edit]

I think Korea.com needs to be removed from the reliable sources list because they have user-uploaded content. Anyone can upload a story to their site, and I was unable to distinguish fan-uploaded stories from ones written by the staff. There may not even be any of the latter. I think it should be added to the unreliable list for this reason. Also, there is a forum (called "Let's Talk") at Mwave (http://mwave.interest.me/forum/theme), and it should also be specified as not a reliable source. I've seen editors try to pass off things from the forums as RS on articles. Also, a few more non-reliable sources I've been seeing lately:

  • unitedkpop.com - a fanblog
  • seoulbeats.com - a fanblog
  • last.fm - I don't even know how to classify this...
  • hwaiting.jp - Japanese fan bog
  • kstyle.com - Japanese fan blog
  • jpopasia.com - fan blog
  • ningen.com - fan blog
  • Yahoo! News - I don't know if reliability varies between different countries' editions - does anyone know? The USA edition is definitely not reliable as half the articles are actually advertisements for weight loss scams and such.

Please let me know what you all think of these items. Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one I've seen used recently is Tokyo Hive, the Japanese edition of Allkpop. Sure enough, "tokyohive is a celebrity gossip site which publishes rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts."
Yahoo! News is a news aggregator just like Naver News and Nate News, so you have to look at the source to know if it's reliable or not. Kstyle is also a news aggregator, not a fan blog. --Random86 (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On second look, Kstyle has their own articles as well. The writers use real names and the website is connected to Line Corporation. --Random86 (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification on Kstyle. I think most editors don't know how to look at the original source to evaluate individual story reliability, which is a huge problem. To me, those should be on the unreliable list since they don't take responsibility for what they print, just reprint others' stories. What do you think? And do you believe the changes I listed above should be taken? (Tokyohive is a definite non-reliable, glad you pointed it out!) Shinyang-i (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Yahoo should go on the unreliable list because much of their content is from Reuters, AP, etc. It really depends on the source. Yahoo isn't a source in and of itself. I agree with you about the fan blogs, Korea.com and Mwave forums. I don't know anything about last.fm; what was it used for? --Random86 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
last.fm is like a place where you can listen to music. User-uploaded, I think. And apparently users can also add profiles for the performers, which I have actually seen used as sources. Yeah, Yahoo is tough to deal with. Case-by-case basis is best then, probably. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion kind of dried up, but based on what's been said, I think there is consensus(?) to do the following:

  • Amend RS list's Mnet Mwave entry with a note about the forums not being a RS.
  • Move Korea.com from the RS to the non-RS list, since user-uploaded material is indistinguishable from staff-posted material.
  • Add the following to the non-RS list:
    • unitedkpop.com
    • seoulbeats.com
    • last.fm
    • hwaiting.jp
    • ningen.com
    • tokyohive.com
    • jpopasia.com
    • anything at wordpress.com (can't believe this has to be said, but articles are full of them)

We'll take no action about Yahoo! News or kstyle.com (thanks, revi, for the additional info on the latter site; I looked further and concur; it's a Japanese version of Naver, basically). If the above list doesn't look right, speak up! :) Shinyang-i (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Korea.com is pretty much like akp and soompi but worse, because they don't credit the original article they took the news from. --Teemeah 편지 (letter) 16:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made all the proposed. I didn't link to the sites since I didn't see the point in helping guide users to bad sources. :P Shinyang-i (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osen

[edit]

I often end up on that page because translated articles for me have often lead back there but I have no clue it it's reliable. Anyone else know?Peachywink (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but it looks reliable to me. It's apparently one of the entertainment news sites of Money Today, which is a national newspaper. --Random86 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know since I definitely did use them as a reference a few times. lol Peachywink (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2015
I have mixed feelings about it. It's enough for our purposes, I think. It sometimes has a lot of "wp:fart" material, but I don't think it's particularly un-reliable. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
Okay, also I found a source i've never seen before on an a-pink article and am unsure of. it's starNnews. Peachywink (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StarNnews, according to their Korean language version belongs to the Hankyung. I don't think we need to invalidate every entertainment news site just because they report entertainment. Where else do we want to get entertainment related news from? :) Teemeah 편지 (letter) 11:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course but I don't know Korean and mostly use google translate to judge if an article is about the topic I need it to be so when I can't find a sites "about us" section I need a little help making sure it's not a gossip site or something else unreliable. The other reason I post about them here is so that if they are good they can be added to the list since that is what helped me out so much when I needed better references.  :) Peachywink (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StarN News should be fine. I've used it before. They report on a lot of trivial things, so keep that in mind. That applies to a lot of the entertainment-focused sites though. Just because something was reported on doesn't make it suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. :) (Another one I've used a few times is Star News) --Random86 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment news ought to have gossip or trivial things reported from time to time, whether it comes from a reliable site or not. I say just use our judgment and determine whether we can make that news become notable and relevant somehow. Trivial matter, in relation to a series of related events, can still become notable right?--TerryAlex (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I said trivial, I was thinking of things like this. I can't think of a reason why that would ever be relevant. :) --Random86 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that would definitely be trivial :D I never even attempt to click on those links just by looking at the articles' titles [:p]--TerryAlex (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on adding Osen, StarN news and more

[edit]

So here hare the ones I think should be added to the reliable list: Osen,StarN news, Star News and for the unreliable list I want to add ygunited and oh!kpop both of which are blog style sites that repost from other sites like allkpop. Peachywink (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to add OSEN, StarN News and Star News, we should probably add Newsen and TenAsia. A lot of Mwave's articles are translations from Newsen, and TenAsia is also connected to Korea Economic Daily. Another one we should add is K-Pop Herald, the entertainment site of Korea Herald. Others I see a lot are Asia Economy Daily and TV Report; anyone know anything about those? --Random86 (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to adding all the ones you mentioned as well, except I can't find anything saying Tenasia is connected to Korean Economic Daily but if that is true then I think it's also acceptable even though it's a blog. Peachywink (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I use Osen, Newsen, StarNews and Asiae very often. And Mwave and Kpopherald, to me, are like the "better" alternatives of Allkpop and Soompi.--TerryAlex (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peachywink, Tenasia is under the domain hankyung.com, which is Korea Economic Daily (Hanguk Gyeongje, or Hankyung for short). I didn't realize it was a blog, but that doesn't necessarily mean we can't use it. --Random86 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to include all the Korean sites on the lists. Nearly all editors use English ones and only link to the Korean ones if Allkpop or whoever have credited them. They probably aren't going to go to those sites to search for info directly. And if they are, they're relying on a very terrible translation through Google or such, which isn't a reliable way to get info and can actually cause many problems (google doesn't translate numbers correctly, for instance. 60만 becomes 60 million). There are so so so many group/company-specific fansites (like the yg one), it's impossible to list them all - I don't get why people can't understand that fansites automatically are not reliable. But maybe we can do a collapsible list of some of them. 10Asia used to generate a lot of English content, and it's still there if you search for it - lots of interviews, very useful. Someone once said kpopstarz is reliable because they list real names for their staff, but I still think it's unreliable and we have no way of knowing if that's really who they are or if they have those faces for appearances, and why would that make them reliable anyway? Being a middle-aged white woman (the supposed head of the site) doesn't somehow automatically mean you run a reliable news site on Korean pop. My two cents - don't bother listing all the Korean-language sites and yes add ohkpop to unreliable. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kpopstarz to me is the third (and actually worse) version of Allkpop and Soompi. Anyways, I actually don't see why we can't add some of the Korean sites to the list, because for whatever reason we get those news links from, whether an English translation or if we search for them ourselves, they are still being used as references.--TerryAlex (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was there ever an agreement about these sites (especially Tenasia)? I see a lot of info I could use on them, but don't want to cite unreliable sources. It kind of defeats the purpose of a source. Katzenlibrary (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can use TenAsia and the Korean sites mentioned here. I think it would be a good idea to add some of them to the list. Random86 (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added Kpop Herald, Newsen, OSEN, StarN, StarNews, and TenAsia to the reliable sources list. Didn't see a consensus on the other sites mentioned here so I left them be for now.Katzenlibrary (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Beging again. How about we just add a note that no fansite articles are allowed such as the girls generation site? I agree It should be obvious but fans will really stretch what qualifies as an acceptable source. Also that makes sense about the Korean sites, but a collapse down list would be helpful for future referencing needs. I would hope people use caution when choosing the articles to include from those sites. Majority of mine I actually had English translation for from a naver site that listed where the original articles came from. But I do also think Google translate can give you an idea of what an article is really about. Such as a lengthy article featuring a picture from Got7's web drama was actually more focused on the rise of web-dramas in general so it wasn't useful. But then again I am practically fluent in Google translate at this point so maybe I get more out of it then most. lol Peachywink (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think fansites can be linked in a couple of instances such as magazine interview translation, in the case a direct Korean link is not available ( for readability purposes, I know that is what I do). but not for regular news, obviously.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenasia is not a blog per se. Blog format doesn't mean it's a personal blog. CNN has blog format pages, so do other major news outlets. Tenasia conducts personal face to face interviews with Korean celebrities and famous personalities. Fansites should only be linked when the original IS available. I did that on a couple of cases to provide the translation to Tenasia interviews and in-depth articles. I usually put them between html small tags as (translation) or use the translation parameter of cite web. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 11:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a couple of magazine translation out there, where a direct Korean link might not be available, but you can provide the name of the magazine and which issue (date/year) it was, I think it should be alright too.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kpop planet

[edit]

Unfortunatly it seems that site might have been shut down which is unfortunate since it was an english language kpop site run by a newspaper. Currently trying to contact someone about it to see if it might just be down but it looks like they closed it.Peachywink (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the URL? Shinyang-i (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://kpoppla.net/ --EliOrni (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nice site, ha ha. Which newspaper was running it? The fact the webhost/server info is all in English makes me wonder, because Korean websites pretty much always use Korean webhosts, AFAIK, and I can't fathom any non-Korean or non-Japanese newspaper having enough kpop news of its own to merit a website. Whois searches turn up no info on the domain at all, which is just weird. Found their twitter, where they claim to be "professional" and in Seoul but ... uh... Is this the place that hosts a whole bunch of English-subbed kpop videos on youtube and claims to be legit but has no website and never identifies themselves? People can claim anything on the internet... Shinyang-i (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was supposed to be Kyunghyang Shinmun that it was connected to but there is no mention of it on the newspapers main pages...I asked someone about it before I think. They had a fairly long supposedly exclusive interview with the group I was looking for sources for. Some new stuff, some I had seen elsewhere but more detailed since it was the members answering questions. I remember the article gavea real persons name not just a username for the writer and it seemed legit...but if it wasn't I'm better without it stinking up my other sources.Peachywink (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh I have a vague recollection of that now. I looked at the Whois record for the domain name again (I must have made a typo last time) and its nameservers are KHAN.COM, pretty definitive proof it was run by Kyunghyang Shinmun. You might be able to find some content by mucking through here, but all pages may not be intact. Good luck! Shinyang-i (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found it, Is it okay for me to use the web archive as a source? Also thank you.Peachywink (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. In fact it's recommended to create archives for any/all of your references. I do it. On the citation template dropdown in your editing window, use "cite web" and then click the button to show more fields. Fill the top part in as if you were using the original site (KPop Planet and KH Shinmun and all that), and then in the bottom half there are places to put the archive URL and the date it was created. Holler if you have problems. The archives are really pretty invaluable to kpop prior to 2010, including all the music charts. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all! I may suggest that we remove KPOP planet from the list of reliable sources, because the URL doesn't work anymore or the site has been shut down. I think our list of reliable sources (and unreliable ones too) should stick to active links or print articles (if possible). Thanks! Tibbydibby (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to disagree simply because there are wiki pages that use archived pages of articles that Kpop planet had. And during the time it was operational it was linked to a real newspaper in Korea giving it credibility. At most I say take it off the list but don't add to unreliable sources. Or at the least, simply add a note on it saying the site was shut down. Peachywink (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peachywink+1 Teemeah 편지 (letter) 07:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peachywink:: I definitely agree that it shouldn't go under "unreliable sources". But as I suggested, let's just take it off the list. Or at least make a footnote, as you suggested, that the site is now defunct as it doesn't work anymore. Tibbydibby (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Teemeah:: Not that many people come here now-a-days. So I don't know if we can have a vote but I would be fine with either option since I realize not every reliable source gets listed here and this is more of a helpful guide. Peachywink (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to vote, I think we now all agree we can make a note that the page no longer works but can still be used from archives. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 11:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More reliable sources

[edit]

This is few newspaper sources that I have usually used in my articles because I thought it is reliable. What do you think about it?

Kenny (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenny htv:, honestly speaking, from my experience, I say that regardless of whether a news site has been determined to be reliable or not, just use our judgment and determine whether we can make that news become notable and relevant somehow. :)--TerryAlex (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allkpop and soompi

[edit]

Sites like these that report news from korean sources should be included into the reliable sources.The English wikipedia recommends the use of english language sites and since what those sites do alot of the time is translate stuff from korean sources they should be included.As to storys that are obviously translated but not sourced that may be excluded.Stuff like gossip and rumours should not be used and be specified on the page specified.Akp has gossip on a seperate category so its easy to distinguish.Junkoo (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Junkoo: we have already discussed akp, soompi and the rest and decided that their articles were too opinionated, many times sensationalist and a lot of times they don't give their original sources. AKP is especially notorious for taking a couple of comments from Korean FORUMS and write articles like "Korean netizens express hate against XY" or "Koreans think.......", based on the opinion of one or two Korean commenters on a forum. Kpop fans take these at face value, but we are an encyclopedia. AKP and in general, kpop blog site articles have to be seriously filtered down to a couple necessary ones that we can trust as reliable. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on AKP and Soompi anymore, because there are a BUNCH of English language reliable sources available (Kpopherald, Mwave, BNT etc.). And no, it is not easy to distinguish gossip on AKP because despite the category, anything they write might or might not be entirely true or distorted. Allkpop is the worst kind of source you can imagine for Wikipedia. Also, we have found a bunch of times that AKP mistranslates articles from Korean sources. They employ regular bloggers to write articles. Nothing ensures quality. it's like you would start a blog at wordpress transating Korean news. No difference in quality. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 21:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for replying but considering it took someone months to be bothered to even read the talk page im not interested anymore i see no point in discussing something that contradicts itself by the end.Junkoo (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Teemeah: I mentioned this to another user that I disgree with the dismissal of Soompi being used as an Eng trans source. There are ocassions where no english articles whatsoever are available from accepted sites like TKH or YHN (I trawl the sites daily sometimes for news) and Soompi is the only english translation available. I mean no disrespect to TPTB but I believe it's wholly inaccurate to regard Soompi in the same light as AKP. Perhaps in the past there may have been articles that decried their being considered a viable news source but I can attest to the fact that at least as regards BTS their reporting is solid and has been solid for quite some time. Can this stance not be reconsidered for BTS news at least? Carlobunnie (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, sources can be in any language, they don’t need to be in English. It can’t be reconsidered for one group only, articles need to be treated equally and not with one rule for one and another for the rest. I think User:Abdotorg has bettter understanding of Korean, perharpse if you’re struggling to find a source you could ask them for some help? Alexanderlee (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soompi can actually be helpful sometimes - if you scroll down to the bottom of an article there is occasionally a source listed. Abdotorg (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not struggling to find sources lol. I already answered you about the one rule for all thing so i won't repeat that here. My query was simply that when there's a lack of ENG sources on an ENG page entry but soompi's eng trans matches the kor articles why not allow it? Kor sources are my first go to, if there's an eng trans source I add it after. I still disagree but I'm in the minority. Thanks for at least listening I guess. Can whoever was part of the original discussion take Soompi back under consideration? That "too opinionated" consensus was back in 2012/2014 and Soompi's writing/reporting surely has changed since then. Carlobunnie (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlobunnie: in these cases what I usually do is that I link the Korean source in {{cite web}} and add the soompi translation link in small letters saying "(translation)". The first and foremost source should NOT be soompi, unless you are using the soompi link to indicate source for example for a review opinion or something like that. If soompi does not give the original Korean source, DON'T USE SOOMPI as a source. If there are no sources other than soompi or akp or other kpop mass blogs available for a topic, don't write that information into Wikipedia. Wait until a serious source covers it. If no serious source covers it, then it is probably not notable or relevant enough to be in Wikipedia anyways. The problem with most kpop article editors here is that they want to include every single information about an idol/band in Wikipedia, from the color of their underwear to the breakfast they had yesterday. Please try to think from an encyclopedic point of view. If an information is not sourcable from serious newspapers, it's either gossip or does not meet notability criteria. Wikipedia should not be considered as an extension of fan blogs. Thank you. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 08:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Teemeah: Your first sentence is all I wanted/needed to know. Again, I was never asking that soompi be allowed as a FIRST source for anything. As regards AKP, to me that site does not exist so it was never in question. Thankfully my mind doesn't operate like "most kpop article editors" as I'm only concerned with presenting stats/facts/achievements/accomplishments which to me is thinking from an encyclopedic pov as that's the info physical ones contain no? I'm assuming your last sentence was more a generalization than directed to me specifically but I still feel I should emphasize I'm not here to make the page in question an 'extension of a fan blog'. The only reason I ever said anything in the first place was because I used soompi once as a secondary eng source (after kor sources) since it was the ONLY eng article that matched more or less all the details mentioned in the kor ones and it was later removed by another user. I didn't pay any mind until another user's edit (he used both akp+soompi) under a diff section got removed with the comment that both were unreliable, which confused me since the article I had used was neither gossip nor irrelevant as you mentioned, but contained notable specifics excluded only in other english articles. I'm not trying to fight with anyone so please don't think so of me for pursuing this, but hopefully it's understood clearly now why I asked/thought it was acceptable, because I keep getting the impression people think I can't differentiate between relevant news and paltry entertainment gossip. As I told Alexanderlee I understand fully now, but atleast I was able to voice my thoughts on a matter I thought should be reconsidered. Thank you for listening. Carlobunnie (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official website

[edit]

Question: Is an official website (of a movie, a drama or a television show) considered as a reliable source? Kenny htv (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally yes, though be careful about using them as they are considered primary sources. It is better to base articles on reliable secondary sources. Evaders99 (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So if a character is depicted on the drama's official website, but the viewers said that it was not existed in the aired episodes. I'm determined to keep it because it's on the official website, but others (only the IPs) removed it because it wasn't in the drama even though they didn't provide any reliable source. When I reverted their edits too many times, I received a message by another editor to remind me about edit warring. So what can I do in this case? Keep or remove that character on English wiki page? (the Korean wiki page still keep it) Kenny htv (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm that's a hard one, not knowing the specific details of this show. Essentially you're in a content dispute - you have a source that says its true versus IPs saying otherwise. As you provided the source, they have to provide a reliable source proving otherwise. You should state your case in the article's Talk page to be sure, but consensus among anonymous IPs could prove difficult. Link us to the article, let some other editors weigh in, and you'll probably get more suggestions how to deal with this. Evaders99 (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here the article, Doctor Crush. Take a look at it if you have the time. You can easily see in the edit history of the page. The character was removed for the first time on August 1, 2016, to now. My source for that character: Official website >>> 병원 사람들 >>> page 3/3 Kenny htv (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kenny htv: If the character has no actor associated it is likely it was decided not to use the character in the drama. The Korean website says "미정" which means "tentative" or "undecided". I dont think a character that did not appear in a show has anything to do in the character list... Teemeah 편지 (letter) 07:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question: Isn't an official website (of a movie, a drama or a television show) considered a non-independent source (WP:IS), a source that is "closely affiliated with the subject" and is, if I'm not mistaken, discouraged in Wikipedia for its tendency to create a sense of bias and self-promotion in articles? I just came across this convo while reading this talk page, and it made me curious to know more about Wikipedia policies. —With love, Nairb.Idi9 (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello. I'm trying to work on cleaning up articles such as 2017 in South Korean music and the other years (I've already removed artists without an article from the debuting and disbanding sections, as well as completely removing joining/departing sections) - can music.naver.com be used as a source for listings? Alexanderlee (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that rather than using Naver Music; which in my opinion is almost like using iTunes as a ref; that you use news or entertainment articles either from Naver or other publishers such as Ten Asia. Abdotorg (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Out of curiosity, what's wrong with using these as a reference for release date and titles of an album/single? Alexanderlee (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

melOn

[edit]

Is MelOn accepted as a reliable source? I feel that MelOn will be a reliable source for Korean Music because it is an official South Korean online music store. CodingNewb (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which portion of the site you want to cite? I have no idea, besides the song metadata. Also, Melon being market-dominating status doesn't grant reliability, imo. — regards, Revi 18:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kdramastars.com

[edit]

Is this a reliable source? I don't see it on either list but I see it fairy often in articles. Alexanderlee (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be related to Kpopstarz - I will add it to partially reliable with the same connotations. Abdotorg (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure what to do with Kpopstarz, they look reliable and unreliable at the same time, the website is not as bad as Allkpop or Koreaboo, but is obviously worse than Korea Herald or something like that, so its hard to say if its reliable or not. And it looks like they have removed "About us" section now, previously they had a whole bunch of people listed as their staff writters and editors, now they have nothing. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article titles on both kpopstarz and kdramastars are very clickbaity which in my opinion takes away all sense of reliability - I would happily move them into the unreliable section, since the about us is also completely gone. Abdotorg (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Exposé

[edit]

LINK: https://www.koreaexpose.com/

I think it's a unreliable source in my opinion, but what do you guys think?

Tibbydibby (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading a few articles, I found no errors. From the standpoint of Koreans, I got the impression that it was like a foreign news article that solved Korean issues well in English. The author seems to be Korean, but on the contrary, there were many articles from a fresh perspective that were difficult to see in Korea. In addition, there was a consistent signature of individual reporters in every article. I don't think it's the best, but it's not the worst. in this regards.--Jeong Seo Yoon (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who determined SBS PopAsia to be unreliable and why?

[edit]

SBS PopAsia is a radio and occasional TV program run by Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), a public broadcaster in Australia. Just because "blog" is in the title of some PopAsia URLs, does not instantly make it unreliable. They also have reporters/presenters who were involved with the K-pop world and still are, like Kevin Kim, who was part of ZE:A. Their writers would be just as reliable as other writers for SBS, which is considered reliable by Wikipedia at large last time I checked. Who determined SBS PopAsia to be unreliable and when was this? Ss112 12:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: After looking through the article history I see it was added to the list by @Abdotorg: but no discussion took place and no explanation was given Alexanderlee (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112:: Looking at the articles, I can see why SBS PopAsia is placed as an unreliable source. Most of their articles' sources are taken from unreliable sources themselves. For example, for this article, it gets its source from a personal account Twitter page. Then, we can look at this article where it gets its source from Soompi, one of the unreliable sources in WP:KO/RS. Heolkpop (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Heolkpop: I believe there are articles on there that don't cite unreliable sources or Twitter, but rather report on K-pop news themselves. Billboard and MTV along with a host of other news outlets frequently report on rumours that have surfaced on Twitter, but those are still considered reliable. Ss112 16:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: I am not sure the real reason why, but for me, I always prefer to use Korean sources. If a news article of those sites provides a Korean source, then it is preferred to use that Korean source. Soompi always does this. That Twitter page, which SBS PopAsia used, also provides Korean sources. Heolkpop (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviving this discussion, as it hasn't reached consensus and I agree with Ss112. I'd very much support moving SBS PopAsia to the reliable sources section. Not only are its authors qualified as listed above, SBS has information on who is running the organization [35] and a rather extensive editorial policy [36] which is enough to convince me that, even if Soompi is listed as a source of information, the content is at least vetted and verified. WP:KO/RS labels it as a "K-Pop site" but it rather is SBS' Asian (not just K-Pop) pop culture media hub. (And while I do agree that often times reliable publications refer to Korean ones for information, Heolkpop, often times they also cite tweets are their sources of information.) Abdotorg, I'm curious to know why you chose to list it as unreliable and Alexanderlee, you commented on here already so I'd love to know your thoughts as well. Redalert2fan, ChromeGames923, ChoHyeri, Evaders99, Fiipchip, Snowflake91, CherryPie94 you've all helped maintain this page (thank you!) so I'd appreciate your thoughts as well. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 01:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielleTH: I see that SBS does have an editorial policy, but I am still reluctant to support listing them as a reliable source. The articles generally do not list specific authors, but this is more of a minor concern. I feel that the biggest issue is still that SBS' articles often use unreliable sources. To me, it does not make much sense to say that Soompi articles are not reliable, while SBS articles that pull information from Soompi are reliable. At the same time, many SBS articles do indeed seem to be news oriented and not just gossip. As a result, I would say that although SBS may sometimes be reliable, there are often better sources out there. If SBS lists a source for its article, I would recommend following that source (for example, to Naver, which itself aggregates articles from various Korean sources, so then the original article can be located). I am also interested in hearing others' opinions on this, since the reliability might vary by article. ChromeGames923 (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’d suggest doing the same as suggested above. I often use soompi to search for information and then check their sources listed (if provided), so using SBS to find alternative sources could be helpful. I agree it’s a little counterproductive to say one source is unreliable, but then use another source which uses the unreliable source as it’s own source. Alexanderlee (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much more to add looking at whats above, seems right. If we can't be sure that everything is reliable we should not move it to the reliable section. However if a good portion of the content is proven to be reliable it could be an option to remove it from the unreliable section but not add it to reliable. Of course then every addition should be checked and it might be more difficult to explain to "new and/or outside" editors why their source is not acceptable. Following the sources that SBS listed seems the best option. Redalert2fan (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because SBS is a reliable news outlet it doesnt mean that their K-pop blog section is reliable as well. Look at this article, you get that typical soompi or allkpop quality like "Get ready EXO-Ls!" and "Are you excited to hear Chen's solo music?", "Check it out below!" etc., while the authors are not even listed, I wouldnt be surprised if this blog section of SBS is edited by the same people that writes news for allkpop or soompi. If SBS popblog is reliable, then soompi and kpopstarz.com should be reliable as well. And look at that "about SBS PopAsia HQ", is this all they can write about themselves? Snowflake91 (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly disagree with comparing the three. SBS has evidence of journalistic standards that neither of the other sites do, and comes from a significantly more reliable company. Soompi and kpopstarz are sites that were made by fans and written by them, not started by a major broadcasting company. I don't mind excluding it from the reliable list but to say that these sits likely have the same writers with no evidence doesn't prove anything. Especially since, this isn't the blog section of SBS, it's part of their programming where there is a television and radio component that broadcasts on SBS. As said above, having "blog" in the URL doesn't automatically make it unreliable.
Also, if there are concerns with being selective on what is reliable and what is not if news sites are behaving similarly, where does this put Billboard? They cite Soompi fairly frequently. They have also cited AllKpop and tabloid sites like Metro. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 16:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DramaFever

[edit]

Is DramaFever news reliable? https://www.dramafever.com/news/1

I have seen it being linked but was unsure about it. Also, is it allowed to source HanCinema drama/film page to actor pages to prove they acted in the work? Or should we include news articles instead of linking to databases? ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CherryPie94The DramaFever page and all its content has been removed since last year, so now all items that are with DramaFever likns have to be changed. And HanCinema is cataloged as a reliable source so it is good to use it to prove that the actors were in a certain production--AnbyG (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know that HanCinema was adding as a reliable sources, but what I'm asking is that only for their news or drama/film pages too? ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources consider reliable

[edit]

Hello all, I am new to the Korea reliable sources topic. I would like to ask for opinion if the following websites are consider reliable or unreliable as I do not see them in the wiki page for reliable sources. Kindly assist in updating if possible as I'm in the progress of update/cleaning up a wikipage. Thank you.

http://www.sedaily.com/ (Seoul Economy) Language in Korean
http://www.travelnbike.com/ Language in Korean
http://news1.kr Language in Korean
http://star.mk.co.kr/ Language in Korean
http://www.kookje.co.kr/ Language in Korean
http://biztribune.co.kr/ Language in Korean
http://inkinews.com/ Language in English
Fiipchip (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Reviewed all and added to the list - please feel free to edit if you feel the descriptions should be altered. Abdotorg (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdotorg: Thank you for the fast review. Fiipchip (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inki news seems unreliable to me, looks like the site is run by one single person who translates stuff from Korean, see this. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry must have let that one slip by - will move it right now, definitely looks rather bloggy. Abdotorg (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdotorg: & @Snowflake91: Thank you to the both of you for the time. I have another question regarding unreliable url sources. If I would like to hide the unreliable url from the wikipage for the time being, is there a html code for it? My reason is if that unreliable sources becomes reliable in the future, I will be able to show the url again. Kindly advise if you know. Thank you all again. Fiipchip (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiipchip: Hide code can be seen inside the nowiki: <!--hidden--> . Abdotorg (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdotorg:Thank you again for the guidance. It works well on my modification. Have a good week ahead. Fiipchip (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of vetting is Abdotorg using for this? I'm not a Korean-speaker, and if there is some site or tool he is consulting, I sure would like to know so I can apply them on the dozens of Korean net-news sources that crop up.
As it stands, it doesn't look like Abdotorg is using anything beyond gut instinct, and letting selfpub sources slip because he's not really checking all that carefully. --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Unreliable Source

[edit]

I'd like to suggest that Korea Portal (http://en.koreaportal.com, and its corresponding Korean website, http://koreaportal.com) be listed as an unreliable source. The website frequently publishes rumors and other unconfirmed information. This can be discovered just by viewing the homepage but I'll list a few examples of the rumor-based articles (as well as the unsourced speculation that appears in the article content). Recent examples include an article reporting on hearsay posted to an online forum about BTS' RM, speculation that Black Pink's Rosé will be releasing a solo performance based solely on a vague Instagram caption, and an article claiming that Momoland's Nancy is "jealous of Black Pink" after speculating that she "glared" at them on a music show, among other incredulous topics. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 01:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will second. Articles don't seem to be sourced anywhere else, the English site seems to be based in New York and the Korean site in LA. Authors don't seem to have any examples of journalist credentials. So I'd put them closer to every other English-language Kpop site. Evaders99 (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metro (UK site)

[edit]

This one is a lot less obvious than previous websites so I'd really appreciate input from other editors here!

So Metro is a UK tabloid site that seems to publish rumors. I'm suspicious about their reliability, cause though they do cover actual stories that are accurate, and these are fairly frequent, they seem to also publish rumors and unconfirmed facts. Looking at their BTS tag as an example, you can see they published the news about BTS' view record before the numbers were confirmed by YouTube, and wrote about a "bromance" between John Cena and J-Hope. You can also notice that they publish numerous factually accurate stories as well. Much of what they report is published by reliable sources (notably Billboard). Thus, I'm wondering if we should treat it like Soompi -- though factually accurate articles are published, enough rumors are posted as well to make the source unreliable. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 03:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Been over a week without anyone contesting the source, so I will add it, please respond if there is an issue. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 01:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhan Minbo

[edit]

Hi all,

User Mlee965 recently included Sinhan Minbo as reliable source. Can someone help to verify as it was not discussed on the talk page?Fiipchip (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks reliable to me. Per its article, it was a very influential Korean newspaper, and appears to operate like a trustworthy paper, including having proper journalists an editors. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 22:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Official website (cont.)

[edit]

Questions:

1/ "Is an artist's page on their management agency's official website considered as a reliable source?" I think the answer is "yes".
2/ " So if that official website is found in the "external links" section, like we can see in a lot of wiki pages about Korean artists, will it be considered as a reliable source or just an external link?" Kenny htv (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's cited as a source, it should be made into a citation, even if it's noted as an external link. Though in general using third party sites are preferred over official websites, since some could argue they fall under WP:SPS. Personally though I don't consider them to be such, and I would say they're reliable. Most only mention things like real name, DoB, and possibly place of birth anyways. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 22:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Star Daily

[edit]

Korea Star Daily (https://www.koreastardaily.com/) is a Chinese-language blog-styled K-pop site. It seems like it operates similarly to Allkpop and Koreaboo, and it is as opinionated as those unreliable sources. Therefore, I suggest placing Korea Star Daily as one of the unreliable sources. What do you think? Heolkpop (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it doesn't look professional. --ChoHyeri (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible reliable sources?

[edit]

Hello, I have a few sources that we might want to consider being either reliable or unreliable:

Thanks, ChromeGames923 (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a late response but of these do you have specifics ones that are either just reliable or unreliable? Or should we take a look and decide for our own? Redalert2fan (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Find out about the news tomato and write down. In South Korea, Tomato Group is a company specializing in investment/ securities, providing investment information through the Internet, mobile and cable securities broadcasting. One of the 14 affiliates of the Tomato Group is News Tomato. Newstomato is a news agency specializing in the economy, dealing with news from the perspective of real economic players such as general investors and small and medium-sized enterprises, moving beyond the bias of large companies and large capital. If you want to utilize information in Newstomato, it is recommended to refer to the direction of information rather than to trust 100%. So I think it's not a bad news source.--Wnghksdl (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Sports Seoul is reliable sources. It is real news company and has an article on Korean Wikipedia at ko:스포츠서울 It has news that Korean TV show and Drama and so on. I checked on it. Won96 (talk)

Kprofiles unreliable?

[edit]

kprofiles (english) seems to be an unreliable site for use as reference on kpop related articles, their "profile/fact" content seems to be completely unsourced or copied from other pages (possibly from Wikipedia) and furthermore includes a lot of trivia. Also runs polls and quizzes. Redalert2fan (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some of the other editors remove this site and don't see any objections so I am going ahead and add this one to the unreliable section. Redalert2fan (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this conversation is pretty much over. As an editor on both Wikipedia and KProfiles, I agree that the site is not always reliable. I personally take the same policies from Wikipedia over to KProfiles when I'm editing. I do know that some people over up information in the comment sections and sometimes its added. KProfiles is a site to learn trivial things about the idols not anything that would really be able to stand on a Wikipedia article because 1, it doesn't give factual things such as "No.1 Billboard Album..." unless up to the editor. and 2, it's a site that has quizzes and polls. I run a new series of Kpop history and facts but that is more to learn about the genre not to take the place for Wikipedia. Please do not source from KProfiles. Ohmyfifthharmony (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that kprofiles seems to be an unreliabe site for use as reference of the articles in Wikipedia. I have visited this site and I found some problems here. First, there was no source of information on the site. Only a short piece of information about idols was listed. Second there were also misinformation in the listed information. When I searched the information on the site through an Internet article, the article said something different from the information in Kprofiles. For this reasons I think kprofiles seems to be unreliable. Byeori Kim (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kpopping added as unreliable

[edit]

I have added Kpopping.com to the unreliable section since Kpopping's Database is a wiki that anyone can edit and provides no references to any (or most) claims made. It is probable that it copies content from Wikipedia itself. Redalert2fan (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SBS popasia unreliable?

[edit]

SBS is a major news organization in Australia, i dont think sbs popasia should be deemed unreliable automatically. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I probably should make the even more important point. There is no website called "SBS PopAsia"! SBS PopAsia is simply just a subsection of sbs.com.au (see Special Broadcasting Service). The information on this project page is incorrect in many regards. Firstly, claiming that SBS PopAsia is a website - it isn't - sbs.com.au is the website. Secondly, claiming it's a K-Pop website - it isn't - it does more than just K-pop. Thirdly, claiming it should be considered unreliable when SBS is a reputable company in Australia. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: SBS has extensive editorial guidelines, it's absolute rubbish for it to be included on the list of unreliable sources: http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_710399796_sbs_editorial_guidelines_2016_30_march_2018_.pdf Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the section "Who determined SBS PopAsia to be unreliable and why?" on this page above? There has been quite an extensive discussion before. Redalert2fan (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, their K-pop blog section is not moderated by professional editors that edits main SBS news page, which is reliable. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a blog section. SBS's editorial guidelines cover all their content. Yes, I read that section earlier. There was no argument for it being included as automatically unreliable. I'm not proposing to add it to the list of reliable sources, im saying there's no reason it should be considered unreliable either. Also, it bears repeating that there is no such website called SBS PopAsia, there's just and only just sbs.com.au. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's zero evidence that SBS PopAsia is not moderated by professional editors. As Apples&Manzanas pointed out, SBS's editorial guidelines cover all their content, including PopAsia. In fact, SBS PopAsia is considered the most influential K-pop program in the Western world, and has been the subject of academic studies on its influence. The book K-pop - The International Rise of the Korean Music Industry devotes an entire chapter to it. As noted above, SBS PopAsia was added to the unreliable list by a single user without discussion or explanation. This is plainly against policy and I've removed it for now. IMO it should be added to the reliable source list instead, but let's wait for others to chip in. -Zanhe (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is also zero evidence that SBS kpop section is moderated by the same professional editors as the articles are not signed by authors, and the tone of the articles is completely sensationalistic and fancrufty (unless the main SBS news section, which seems completely different), something like you would read on allkpop or koreaboo, and not by the full-time professional writter. It literally seems that whoever writes those articles get their info from K-pop wikia or fandom wikias. See this and this, do you notice any similarities there? Yup, exactly – as I said months ago, that blog section is written by the same part-timers that writes for soompi or allkpop. I mean this article is identical, "BTS swept", "check out the winners below", the same number of paragraphs, the same wording. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page 5 of the SBS editorial guidelines say: "All links on the SBS website must be editorially justifiable. Before linking to a website, content producers must check the content of the site. When SBS covers a sensitive or controversial matter, context is important in deciding whether a link is appropriate. It is often useful to explain why SBS is offering the link. In some cases, SBS may offer a link to a site that does not share SBS’s editorial values. SBS should be seen to be impartial." It's hard to interpret the words "all links on the SBS website" as anything other than "all links on the SBS website". Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that SBS is governed by legislation too: (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014C00736). Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't follow their own policy across all parts of their site, can it really be reliable? I doubt there is any journalistic fact-checking on their posts. They don't even list an author, it's just regurgitating what is posted elsewhere. A site cannot be "half reliable" - it is either a reliable source or it isn't. There's good evidence here that their Kpop section isn't reliable. Evaders99 (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean they don't follow their own policy? Do you have any evidence they habitually post false information or state unconfirmed rumours as facts? Whether a named author is listed or not is irrelevant. Even some of the most reputable media sources, such as The Economist, do not name their authors, and neither do most government publications (and SBS is a quasi-government organization). -Zanhe (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

  • "There's good evidence here that their Kpop section isn't reliable." There's good evidence here their Kpop section is reliable.
  • "A site cannot be half reliable - it is either a reliable source or it isn't." This is a false dichotomy and directly contradicts: WP:Reliable_sources#Context_matters "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content".
  • Citing a television, website, or radio program can in some instances be highly relevant, and other instances be not so relevant, depending on how that source/citation is being used.
  • I hate to break it to you but I've seen tonnes of factual inaccuracies in mainstream newspapers, in academic journals, etc. But if someone finds one instance of the sbs pop asia section having an inaccuracy then we just ban use of that source? Makes no sense. I've found thousands of objective mistakes in the most prestigious of newspapers across my lifetime, but this is because humans are fallible and information will never be perfect. After all, we're talking about reliable sources, not perfect sources. There's no such thing as a perfect source.
  • SBS PopAsia is not a self-published program, it is a program published by a major media company in Australia, which works under a system of editorial guidelines, a board of directors, and legislation. To say that this source can never be cited and is in no instances ever relevant, is totally silly. This isn't exactly some kid's blogspot account. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the only real reason people are objecting to SBS being reliable is the fact their author isn’t always stated. So my question is this: would you also deem Billboard Korea as an unreliable source, for this same reason? Alex (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. BBC just posted a fancrufty article about an internet cat without even listing an author! Obviously not reliable enough to meet our exalted standards for K-pop articles, right? -Zanhe (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By this same standard of no author = not reliable, Billboard Korea is also deemed unreliable, as this article also does not state their author. I have never seen anyone consider any of the Billboard websites to be unreliable. Another point made in a section further up was that they sometimes use Soompi as their own source or that they often report on rumours surfaced from Twitter, yet Billboard also do both of these, so by the same standard, Billboard is also unreliable. Now, I’m not suggesting that Soompi and the likes should now be considered reliable, however SBS’ own policy suggests that even if the author is not stated, and their information is from sites such as Soompi, that per their own policy it is still vetted. And as said, if one source is used that someone notices is incorrect, that can be discussed on the article talk page with explanation and evidence of that. Alex (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just the lack of authors, its the styling in which the articles are written, they are literally (well not really, but very similar) copy/pasted from Soompi or Allkpop. And those "facts" like "9 things you didnt know about Jihyo" are literally copy/pasted from Wikias, like k-pop fandom, twice wikia etc. And there are a contradictory statements in those articles, as I said above months ago, one article about Jihyo is saying that she trained for nine years, and then the other article about Jihyo from the same SBS source says ten years – so how come? They obviously dont check the facts, they just copy/paste info from somewhere. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I believe the inconsistency you previously mentioned was about Jihyo's age at the time she started training (one article said 8 years old and one article said 9 years old), rather than how many years she was training for. (Snowflake's comments were made here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Park_Ji-hyo.) As Zahne pointed out at the time, this is likely because of the East Asian age reckoning#Korea, an entirely reasonable and understandable error because reliable sources may write about that in two different ways. In any case, so what? I've found entire BBC articles that have been premised on incorrect dates and facts. For example this article about pavlova from the BBC and the claim from the Oxford dictionary are entirely objectively incorrect. (If anyone cares: the first pavlova recipe bearing the name pavlova was published in 1926 in Australia. The 1927 recipe cited from Davis Dainty Dishes in New Zealand is just a copy/paste from the Australian edition of Davis Dainty Dishes in 1926. I can provide sources if youre interested - i was reading academic journals about this yesterday.) Hey guys, I guess we better add the BBC to the list of unreliable sources! Publishing mistakes and erroneous details!? No fact checking!? Spreading false claims? And to make matters worse, it doesn't even have an author! Oxford English Dictionary is clearly also unreliable and should never be cited on wikipedia either right? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metro source listing

[edit]

My edit got reverted, so i guess i need a new discussion on the metro.co.uk listing in the unreliable sources section. This should be deleted from the unreliable sources section. For starters, it simply doesn't belong on the list whatsoever. This wikipedia project is meant to be devoted to Korean websites, the metro.co.uk is neither korean nor does it primarily deal with korea. It shouldn't be eligible to be on this list. Secondly, it's bizarre that it's listed as an unreliable source when it's simply an ordinary major newspaper. Like, obviously no newspaper needs to be treated as gospel, but there's really no reason whatsoever that it shouldn't be valid to cite any articles from it if no one can point out anything wrong with the citation. I'm not proposing to add it to the reliable sources section, im just saying it doesnt belong on this list at all. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia describes Metro (British newspaper) as "the United Kingdom's highest-circulation print newspaper", so it is highly relevant if the metro is commenting on a pop culture trend or something like that. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a list of unreliable Korean sources, this is a list of unreliable sources in their covering of Korean subjects. That is something different. And in fact, you are not giving any reasoning for removal of metro.co.uk other than that it is not Korean. The Banner talk 09:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The project page says "The list below provides the names of Korean sites that can and cannot be used as a source", perhaps that needs to be reworded, but that is indeed what the project page says.
  2. The Metro doesn't even primarily deal with Korea, so it makes no sense why it's on the list, this list should at least be about sources that primarily or often relate to Korea.
  3. I did give reasons as to why it should not be on the list besides the fact it is not Korean/doesnt primarily deal with Korea e.g: "It's bizarre that it's listed as an unreliable source when it's simply an ordinary major newspaper" and "Wikipedia describes Metro (British newspaper) as "the United Kingdom's highest-circulation print newspaper", so it is highly relevant if the metro is commenting on a pop culture trend or something like that".
  4. But I can give more reasons if need be, they clearly have an extensive editorial policy and all that stuff etc https://metro.co.uk/about/. As I said in my original edit summary "metro is a regular british newspaper, there's no reason for it to be on a list of unreliable sources whatsoever." Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A little late to this discussion, but I've only found this list recently. I agree that Metro doesn’t belong on the list simply because Metro is not aimed at Korea-related news, however Wikipedia consensus is that the site is generally unreliable. See WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, perhaps if removing a Metro source because of reliability issues it would be better to point to that list rather than this one. Alex (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seo kang joon

[edit]

Hi. Seo kang joon has received an award for “watcher “ .please add this to his biography ShamimBr95 (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ShamimBr95:, as you were told at the article talk page, all information needs to be reliably sourced. You are welcome to make this change yourself. Alex (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soompi Awards

[edit]

Can soompi be used as source for soompi awards? Recent soompi awards were covered by other medias but for earlier awards, say, 2006 – 2010, there are no other alternative source. Lulusword (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, those awards were not notable prior 2017, list only awards ceremonies since 2017. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why? It is either notable or not, not in between? There are videos on soompi yt channel of awards given as early as 2012, I think. On BTS awards page, it was listed from their first win in 2014. So, clearly there are inconsistencies. Lulusword (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find secondary reliable sources for awards then add it, but if there is no media coverage then the awards are not notable enough to be listed, it should not be sourced by soompi itself. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the award itself become notable when it was covered by other medias in recent years, as I said, it is either notable or non notable, not something in between. As such, it does not need secondary source to gain notability again for each award year. Besides, soompi was deemed unreliable as source because of its gossipy tone of articles/news but from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves, it can be used as source about their own activity, which Soompi awards is. Lulusword (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the awards received zero coverage before 2017 then they were not notable, its that simple. If the 2018 edition received wide coverage in reliable media, that doesnt automatically makes the 2010 edition notable. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, that doesn't make sense to me. The earliest American Music Awards are not covered by media either, but they were notable since they are apart of American Music Awards, which is notable by itself. This is the same case. We cannot deemed only few years as notable unless an unexpected thing happened during one of the awards, otherwise. The most recent award itself is called 14th Annual Soompi Awards, which automatically assume there are 1st until 13th award. Unless Soompi award by itself is notable, all of them shouldn't be on wikipedia. However, this topic had gone a bit off-course for me. And as I believe we have different position in this issue, I dont think arguing any further will bring us anywhere. Everyone else, feel free to chime in and share your thought. Lulusword (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that AMAs were not notable in the 1970s? It was covered in the newspapers, it is covered today as a "Look back at the AMA Awards through the years" articles published by varius reliable media, and even the first-ever edition in 1974 was broadcast on American Broadcasting Company. Soompi on the other hand received zero media attention in its initial editions, and no reliable media mentions previous winners from like 2006 or 2007 when reporting 2019 winners. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my bad phrasing/intepretation.

Anyway, in summary, I would argue Soompi Awards by itself is notable because in the recent edition, the secondary sources described what exactly the award is and how long it has been awarded here [37], [38] and [39]. The award was also broadcast on Myx TV starting from 2011 for a few years. (There is news piece about this but it is kinda trivial and I can't find it again today) And if Soompi Award is deemed notable, it can be covered by primary source as it said here on Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Primary criterion, where it says Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content, which mean, it can be used to cite earlier winners without needing to be covered by other sources as long as it is verifiable. But since this wiki project deemed Soompi as unreliable source due to its gossipy tone of its news reporting, so I post this question here to seek others opinion about it because there is this rule exception here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves.

On the other hand, if Soompi Award by itself is non-notable, I would argue that all soompi awards win & noms on list of awards and nominations articles to be removed as it is non-encyclopaedic. Saying only a few editions to be notable make it seems like all the reports about it are incidental (I am sorry if that is not the correct word) and for example, was only covered because bts won the aforementioned award, not because the award by itself is noteworthy.

Either way, I by myself cannot say/decide if the award itself is notable or not, and this is not the correct talk page to discuss it. I might bring it up to the proper notability talk page if I am not lazy (which I kinda am at the moment), and since there is no urgency need of it right now, I am not pressing for it, so I am stepping back from arguing about this issue. Lulusword (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gray zone reliability

[edit]

I would think some internet news sources, upon closer scrutiny, probably belong in a grayzone reliability category, that is, something like a "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply", in the WP:RSPSOURCES table.

I think the WP:RSPSOURCES table is more discerning, and only makes certain exceptions of online media as "reliable".--Kiyoweap (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I was recently informed that Naver sources are unreliable, and that they should not be used as a reference, especially on GA articles. But as far as I understand, we could use Naver sources as long as the news article contents are from the reliable news outlets (e.g. Yonhap News, 10Asia, etc. on Naver) So I would like to seek clarification if we could use Naver sources at all across all article classes. Thanks all. Heolkpop (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naver is not an unreliable source. As their Search Alliance program explains, it holds partnerships with various publications. These publications allow Naver to republish their content. Naver articles also link back to the original article on the publication's website under the "기사원문" link found under the article's title. They essentially help preserve news articles that would otherwise get lost when these companies make modifications to their websites or go offline for whatever reason. A lot of links from enews24.tving.com, like this one which Naver preserved, are no longer accessible on their website because of a server error (try accessing the link directly from this enews24.tving.com search result to see what I mean). Would links directly from the original publications be preferred? Sure. But using a Naver News link is not the end of the world. ƏXPLICIT 04:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Explicit, that is very informative. Thank you for the reply! Heolkpop (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's clarify that we are talking about Naver News, and not Naver blogs, though :) Teemeah 편지 (letter) 17:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doopedia

[edit]

Hi! Doosan Encyclopedia should be on the reliable sources list. Teemeah 편지 (letter)

Bandwagon

[edit]

Is Bandwagon.asia a reliable source? SnowKang (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My initial look says unlikely - they are just another Asia music website based in Singapore. I don't see any notable journalist credentials or backing by notable news companies. Not to say they are inherently unreliable but I would recommend finding other sources. Evaders99 (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah,I see.Thanks for replying!! SnowKang (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding Asian Junkie to the list of unreliable sources?

[edit]

asianjunkie.com I've had a look at the website and I'm sure it's a gossip site. So can someone please add it to the list of unreliable sources? Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think this falls under "All personal and fan blogs are unreliable unless specifically stated otherwise." so it wouldn't need to be added separately. But as a comment on this sites credibility for usage as references, it clearly should not be used. -Redalert2fan (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are these websites considered reliable?

[edit]

Hi! So, I just found a website owned by Yonhap News Agency (https://en.yna.co.kr/aboutus/domesticnetwork). Are those websites listed considered reliable for Wikipedia? Thank you for answering! Byy2 (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YNA is reliable, but their reliability do not affect their subscriber's reliability. You don't assume random publisher is reliable because they get some stories from AP, AFP, Reuters, etc. Same deal. (Probing from the list, most of them are already reliable, but that does not mean you can blindly trust the list.) — regards, Revi 10:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand. Once again, thank you for answering! Byy2 (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi! So, i want to ask. Is it okay to use Melon or Naver Vibe as the source for the album credits? Because for some artists, when i search them on Naver, it redirects me to Naver Vibe instead. And i think there's no other sources apart from their social media accounts, like Twitter. Byy2 (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Byy2: both are fine to use (I've seen more editors cite Melon than NV) though crediting directly from the physical album is better if you have access. Apple Music and Tidal can also work as well if you want an eng source for credits (if no articles list the information that is) but if you aren't sure how to use those as refs then you don't have to. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Thank you for answering! Byy2 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkvilla

[edit]

Hi! I would like to ask/discuss if Pinkvilla is considered as reliable source. They have section for Korean entertainment[40] and they are regularly posting news/articles. If yes or no, please add in the list. Thank you. Accireioj (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a typical entertainment blog with a focus on Bollywood, their Korean section is just largely one contributor or a staff writer without journalism credentials. Like most such Kpop news sites, I'd consider them unreliable. Evaders99 (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources not listed but still used in articles

[edit]

There are several sources not listed here that are considered unreliable for use on WP but continue to be used in both old and new articles, including the International Business Times, Metro UK, Republic TV/World, Newsweek, Pinkvilla/Meaww/Bollywood Life (1, 2, and 3), etc., the latter few of which, while not on the Perennial sources list, are also considered unreliable or very low-quality sources. I've linked some of the discussions on them for reference. As many editors are/may not be aware of the aforementioned list, could a link to it be placed somewhere on the KO/RS page with an accompanying note that editors should also check there for additional guidance on source reliability? I think it would be helpful. Kultscene is another unreliable source not on the WP:KO list, but currently used on 39 project-related articles. I have removed several instances of its usage in the past (and did 2 more a short while ago), and while it is not heavily used, it is still a fan-created/fan-run site. I would remove the remaining 39 instances myself, except I lack the familiarity with those articles subjects to be able to find suitable replacement sources, which is always the preferred route instead of just tagging. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit doubtful for Kultscene, as some articles are written by Tamar Herman, which is quite a well-known name when it comes to English news coverage of K-pop topics. The only familiarity I have is with Moon Lovers article, which I wrote, and at the time I couldn't find another source stating that there are two different versions of the series. --ChoHyeri (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Herman writing for Kultscene doesn't automatically make it a reliable source. She could write for Koreaboo or Soompi and that still wouldn't be a valid reference to use either. It's like using Forbes.com/sites articles (I've linked to the perennial sources entry for it so you can see what I mean), written by K-pop and BB journalists (including J Benjamin and Herman), which appear on many kpop-related wiki-pages. I used to think they were fine because of who wrote them and used them many times in the past myself, but those Forbes sources don't pass muster in GA/FA reviews and always end up being removed (the most recent eg. of this being the BTS GAR; see 3rd bulletpoint discussion abt Forbes under the MOS concerns section) despite being written by "reputable" authors. Kultscene having one known writer on its staff doesn't automatically make them a reliable/notable source, or change the fact that KS is a fan site. And often times, if the only place a particular piece of info can be found is on a questionable site, and no one else (i.e. no actual reliable secondary source) has covered it, then either 1) that info or the subject the info is about is not notable enough, or 2) the info should just be excluded altogether from the subject's WP page since it cannot be reliably sourced. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asking again, since it's been a few months and only one other editor participated in the discussion: would anyone object to the removal of the remaining 38 uses (excluding the one mentioned above as ChoHyeri would know best how to handle that article) of KultScene from the respective articles? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I'll help with the removal. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources considered reliable - Charts

[edit]

Hi everybody! I got some questions and I'd like someone to help me.

  • I've read all the discussions about AllKpop and I've got some questions. As I've seen, it's considered unreliable but for some subjects, can't it be correct? I mean, it's a site that translates korean ones to english.
  • Also, I need to use this article for the draft Draft:LØREN (musician), can I use it or not?
  • Based on this site, there are some rankings on charts. It doesn't say in which chart. How can I find it even if it is months ago?
  • I've found here, here, here (and other articles of the same site) and here that he has produced for Somi but I don't find anywhere that information to her songs, neither with his other names. Is it possible so many sites saying that information and not be true? OK, maybe bandwagon or Vacancy Mag are not important but Vogue Hong Kong is considered one of the best mags. How can this be possible?

Thanks everyone! - Fisforfenia (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can use of the following Korean articles for the YSL campaign: 1, 2, 3. As for the charts, it looks like some popularity charts compiled by Popnable, thus they don't seem to have any relevance for Wikipedia. --ChoHyeri (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChoHyeri thank you so much for the sources!!!!! Can you tell me where you found all these because I've spent days and haven't found anything like that! - Fisforfenia (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I searched with "로렌 생로랑". --ChoHyeri (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they are translations of Korean news sources, then just cite the Korean source instead.Evaders99 (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per the articles saying he has produced for Somi, I think they all made a mistake, taking that information from one another; after all, he only has four credits on KOMCA if you search by compiling "Writers & Publishers" with his ID (10015622). --ChoHyeri (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChoHyeri: @Fisforfenia: KOMCA doesn't lists producers, and I couldn't find anything on Naver. I think it's weird that the tracklist of Somi's album doesn't mention producers. If he has credits there then the only solution is to check the physical copy of the album. - Ïvana (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of kpopwise.com

[edit]

Saw this being used in one of the drafts, Draft:Lionesses (band) I am looking at. Its about us page has this: We strive to be a reliable and unbiased Kpop news source curated by experienced journalist and Kpop fans. Is this site reliable to be used for kpop related articles? – robertsky (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this website doing anything different from Allkpop (WP:KO/RS#UR), which is just translating articles from Korean to English. There's no vetting or fact-checking, so I'd say unreliable. ✗plicit 00:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Asia

[edit]

I'm looking for a consensus to add Hello Asia in the reliable source section. I'm not sure the basis of its original addition in unreliable source as there's no discussion of it here. Hello Asia is a fork of The AU Review, an independent music, arts, travel, lifestyle publication based in Australia which was already deemed reliable by WP:ALBUM/SOURCES through this 2019 discussion, but focuses more on Asian content, including K-pop.[41] Both sites are under Heath Media, probably named after the founder Larry Heath.[42]

The way the website is structured makes it hard to see all of their writers but some of their contributors are:

  • Anastasia Giggins [43] [44] wrote for both The AU Review and Hello Asia and is currently its editor-in-chief
  • K-Ci Williams [45] have written for Teen Vogue, Vulture.com, Refinery29, The Spinoff
  • Stephanie Choi [46] has a degree in Korean Music and master in Ethnomusicology
  • Jessica Lee [47] interned for The AU Review before becoming Hello Asia writer, has a background in marketing and events. She previously worked at Olive Tree Entertaiment and Three Angles Production which organised K-pop/Asian artists concerts in Australia
  • Holly Terrens [48] is a singer-songwriter and has a degree in Popular Music
  • Lya Susanto [49] has double degree in Media and Communications, and Screen and Cultural Studies. She previously worked with Indonesian Film Festival as marketing officer/consultant
  • Johnny Au [50] wrote for both Hello Asia and The AU Review, and the latter's head photographer. Former editor in chief of Hello Asia
  • Larry Heath himself [51]

Lulusword (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Maybe transfer this discussion to WT:RS for wider consensus since Hello Asia doesn't just reports exclusively on Korean-related topics. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Paperdoll. This talk page doesn't usually get a lot of traffic, so it would be better to ask somewhere that more editors could see it and provide an opinion, including at WT:KO. I don't think it's a quality source and would use the plethora of other more well-known sites/sources over it, esp for music reviews—it wouldn't make my list of top 10 or 20 review sources tbh—but that's just me. As an aside, if the only place specific info about something can be found is their website (and no one else has mentioned it), then maybe whatever you want to cite isn't actually notable/worth including. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment. What I want to cite is their album/single review, which of course is exclusively from them since they are opinion pieces, usually written by subject-matter expert. I genuinely don't mind not using them in articles when there are other reviews available. However, I posted this to get others to weigh in whether they are written by expert, or by k-pop hobbyist, as Hello Asia was added in non-reliable section without consensus in the first place. On another note, I have no idea that the traffic here is this low as other post still get replies. I will notify WP:KO to attract more responses although I don't think there will be much either. Lulusword (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not every source added to lists like these actually require consensus before doing so. Some are universally accepted by most, if not all, editors to be rel/unrel. If there's disagreement subsequent to an addition, at the same time or much later on, then discourse takes place accordingly, as evident by the talk page history and this discussion. In my experience with K-pop sites similar to HA, if the bulk of your articles are coming from freelance contributors with no clear credentials that's a point in the 'No' column for reliability. And unfortunately for HA, a quick scroll of their Review section shows tons of diff names (w no author profiles) which gives me the impression they're fan-written contributor pieces. Most of the names I tapped on just take me to other articles they've contributed (some of them are on Muckrack but their profiles are empty aside from the articles they've written for HA). Must I hunt on Google to find out who they are, who they've written for before, to determine whether it's a viable piece or not, every time I want to cite HA? The link for Stephanie Choi leads to an error page. Heath owns the site, but does he contribute to the review content? If not, mentioning him is irrelevant. HA has no section clearly indicating its Staff (it's About section provides nothing either) nor does it contain an Editing Policy of any sort (atleast not that I could find) to indicate how they review/vet the pieces published on the site. When editors decide on the reliability of a source on the Perennial Sources list, this is another factor they mention. The Heath Media website says HA is "Australia's largest digital publication focusing purely on...", according to who? Themselves? Even with the credentials of some of the writers (I'm also taking into consideration the type of content they've done for other sites, eg. K-Ci) and the stipulation that HA be used for music review content only, I'm still not convinced that they're reliable enough to warrant inclusion on the list. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with the site, it seems to have writers and presumably some editorial control? It's not user submission based? This is not a high profile publication, but it does seem to be moderately reliable IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitree

[edit]

Is Wikitree (https://www.wikitree.co.kr/) reliable? It's a Korean sports, economy, entertainment, culture news site. HoneyKpop (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit of digging around the site, it looks fine to me. A pretty standard news source. ✗plicit 04:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Magazine

[edit]

Is Y Magazine a reliable source for music reviews? It has been mentioned by Hankyung and News 1 kinda as a way to select the album of 2022, but I'm not sure if it's just a press release. And does anyone know any Korean music magazines other than IZM? I haven't found much. Poirot09 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say It's hard to verify if's a reliable source. There isn't much to go on. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 21:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes at first glance, honestly. As per other Korean music magazines, I only know Idology and Rhythmer, with the latter focusing more on R&B. --ChoHyeri (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes. Various critics that are fairly well known in the Korean music industry have written for this website, so to me, it seems like a reliable source. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 13:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Odyssey

[edit]

Thoughts on k-odyssey.com adding it as a reliable source? The site is operated by Yonhap News Agency. You can see the details at the bottom of k-odyssey homepage. 98Tigerius (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@98Tigerius from a quick sampling of the content on k-odyssey and Yonhap, it seems that k-odyssey is taking content from the kpop/culture section of the main English Yonhap site (https://en.yna.co.kr/culture/index). Probably a repackaged site just to cater to the kpop fans for now. I guess it is fine as long as you don't use both Yonhap and k-odyssey together for a claim and assert that it is true because there are multiple sources when it is just overall Yonhap. – robertsky (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky alright noted that. Have a great day and happy editing. 98Tigerius (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Segye Ilbo

[edit]

Would you consider Segye Ilbo to be reliable despite the publication being owned by News World Communications, who was founded by the Unification Church founder? —beetricks ~ talk · email 14:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All Access Asia

[edit]

Hello! Is the website (allaccessasia.com.au) is a reliable source? Thank you in advance! Byy2 (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otakukart

[edit]

Hi! Is Otakukart considered a reliable source? Thank you, Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Q

[edit]

Is anyone familiar with Sports Q and can attest to its reliability or lack thereof? I'm looking for a replacement source for the Kult Scene ref in the lead of Love X Stereo and this Sport Q article is the only one I've found that mentions both their debut year and the name of their debut EP. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soompi

[edit]

While Soompi in its early years was unreliable and disorganized, I think the website should be considered a reliable source, as in the last several years they have refined their system by translating from reliable Korean news sources and even citing them at the bottom of each article for reference. Most of the reliable sources I have used for articles nowadays I've gathered from Soompi's website. However, I know that wikipedia does not like to use first party sources often and it doesn't always help when one of the few sites reporting on certain events is Soompi and they're citing a first party source (ex: Kara has announced they're coming back as a group, the source is an announcement from Kara's official social media pages.)

Its not like allkpop either where they allow users to write the articles themselves, nor do they really give much attention to rumors or gossip, and at least from the articles I've seen in the last few years, they haven't really leaned into editorials when it comes to important news. It very much runs like a professional source nowadays and I think it should be upgraded to one as such. They haven't really done much in recent years to bring their notability into question. - K-popguardian (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@K-popguardian I think for this to happen, we will have to determine a date from which we consider the articles written on after as reliable. I can't find any indication of a clear date. Also, we might need a RfC given that this website was discussed a number of times here, and at the Reliable sources Noticeboard, even though there is no formal close to have it listed at WP:RSP. – robertsky (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I noticed Soompi was on your "unreliable sources" list. I read the talks discussing it and it seems like you guys are categorizing it with sites like Allkpop and Koreaboo who, in the former's case, is suspicious to say the least, and in the latter's case is basically just a whole big case of WP:FART in one website. Soompi translates from Korean news websites, and while it may have a little cruft, the same Korean sites it translates from have cruft too. I'm wondering why it's considered an unreliable source when it just translates from (AFAIK reliable) Korean sources. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Soompi's writers are not subject experts. Their articles are still posted/written by fans or obscure writers with no known credentials listed anywhere. An unreliable source's post or article being reported on by reliable sources doesn't make the unreliable source suddenly reliable. As an example, BB has reported on news from Koreaboo before, but Koreaboo is still an unreliable source and no one would argue otherwise. And if they started translating news from reliable Korean-language sources, they'd still be considered an unreliable source, just one that offers translated news also. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I mentioned adding this back in May 2022. Took the liberty of linking it at the top of the page today. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

[edit]

I leave additional suggestions here for reliable and unreliable sources for Korean websites.

Reliable

Unreliable

You do realize the list is not meant to be a directory of every reliable and unreliable source right? RYM is considered generally unreliable for ALL music on WP (it has been addressed in several discussions found in the WT:WPMU archives), so unless someone is going around insisting on adding it to K-related pages, I don't see a pressing need to have it listed. Forums are considered generally unreliable by the Korea Project (see the cmmts next to Naver Cafe and One Hallyu in the list) and therefore without us having to name every single one, DC Inside is understood to be a no-go as a source. IZM is good no question, but I have to disagree with Genie Music Magazine. That's like citing Weverse Magazine articles. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got what you mean, and of course I'm not asking to everything being listed, it's just a suggestion. However, IZM, Rhythmer, and Visla magazine are accepted as official webzines in Korea. I think there won't be any confusion when it comes to identifying reliable sources for them to be on the list. I think at least some webzines are worth being listed, as Korean indie writings usually overlap music-related sources with Korean-related sources. I will write that because you agreed with IZM. But I think some webzines like Visla, Rhythmer, etc. is also reliable, and if other users think that's right too, I'll revise it too. 올해의수상자 (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't comment on those other ones because I've never used them, with the exception of IZM. And to be clear, I didn't say or imply that anything is wrong with citing webzines. I just won't comment on the reliability of sources I'm unfamiliar with. Hopefully other editors who know of them will chime in. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. And I will wait for other people's opinions. 올해의수상자 (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esquire Korea

[edit]

Hello! Is Esquire Korea[65] considered a reliable source? Please help me, thank you! Zhglobal (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OhmyNews

[edit]

@Toobigtokale Hey, I saw you added OhmyNews to the reliable sources list? OhmyNews is a website that uses user-generated content and is naturally rife with undisclosed conflicts of interest, hoaxes, and other issues (on a Bill Gates assassination hoax and regarding loose fact checking on stories that aren't "hard news"). The 20% of articles written by staff journalists are probably fine, but I don't think we can call non-staff articles reliable. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I hadn't heard of those hoaxes and admittedly hadn't read into the situation in detail. Yeah it doesn't belong there. Fortunately I haven't used OhmyNews much in my own writing, but I'll review each of the uses to make sure they're fine. toobigtokale (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica Korea

[edit]

The Korean edition of Encyclopædia Britannica no longer exists that currently redirects to Britannica Education site (https://elearn.eb.com/). Is there an Wayback Machine to find on these links per WP:Link rot? 179.49.5.119 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Dispatch can be counted as reliable source?

[edit]

Hi everyone, I have a question regarding to the reliabbility of the news media, Dispatch, in Korea. (https://www.dispatch.co.kr/) I usually use dispatch for following korean culture and latest news, and would like to know if it can be included as a reliable source? They usually reporting news by photo taking and writing news by their own reporters, not only quoting rumors on the internet.

Sorry that I'm new to this community and would like to try participating in wikipedia for proving accurate information. Any further details I can provide for counting Dispatch as reliable source? Thanks for the help! Ianmaksh (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it should be not.
Read a precedent case for The Sun: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_254#RfC:_The_Sun TheWandering (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also 200,000 people signed petition to get it banned after spreading rumors about G-Dragon and others. Using Dispatch for Wikipedia is a total no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWandering (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Dispatch to be similar to the American site TMZ. I never use it as a source for anything and usually discourage others from doing so. There are tons of other far more reliable, non-tabloid like sites and outlets that can be used to source sports, culture, music etc.-related news. In my experience on WP, most editors generally don't consider it a reliable source nor do they use it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add that Allkpop is considered unreliable because the similar problems with rumors/facts. This is its description for All-Kpop in the unreliable section: "A celebrity gossip site based which publishes rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts." TheWandering (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlobunnie: What do you think about using Dispatch as sources in Lee Seunggi vs Hook cases? According to this report Dispatch was the winner of the 386th 'Reporter of the Month Award' in the economic report category hosted by the Journalists Association of Korea for 'Kang Jong-hyun's Bithumb... (Fake) Chairman's reality tracker'. So I read the article and the award is prestigious. While report about Lee Seunggi’s case don’t get an award, They were written by the same reporter. Preferwiki (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Lee Seung Gi's case is also reported by the reliable media like Korea Herald, not exclusively Dispatch. Plus, Lee actually spoke about it publicly. So you can't really use that case to support Dispatch.
https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20221202000585
https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20221216000540&mod=skb
https://www.straitstimes.com/life/entertainment/singer-actor-lee-seung-gi-to-end-contract-with-hook-entertainment-after-18-years TheWandering (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Dispatch apparently only joined the Association last year. And for the record, the executive producer of TMZ also "won nine Emmy awards, and has received numerous other journalism awards".
"Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles based on rumor and speculation without named sources, it is recommended to explicitly attribute statements to TMZ if used. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider also whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person."
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources TheWandering (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I hear other inputs about Dispatch? It's been here for a while.
Considering the precedent against The Sun, AllKpop, and TMZ, I should say no for Dispatch.
I also would like to remind other editors about inconsistencies. Some editors might be tempted to use Dispatch if it published a beneficial news for their idols (although uncorroborated or still rumors), yet they would reject Dispatch if it published negative news about their idols.
I'd tag other active editors: @Explicit @Nkon21 @ChoHyeri TheWandering (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dispatch does not appear at all on the list. Shouldn't this be fixed? Also, should we open another discussion about it since this one is one year old?
I have no personal opinion about the reliability of Dispatch because I don't actually know them well, but I do know, after editing a few K-pop pages, that many crucial people went to Dispatch to release exclusive interviews. So if it will be considered unreliable a disclaimer should be needed. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HanCinema

[edit]

HanCinema is already currently on the reliable sources list, but seemingly didn't have much of a discussion before. Logging one here now. The site appears to have its own writing staff and doesn't appear to be WP:USERGENERATED. As long as the information on it has been reliable to peoples' experience, I suspect the site itself is reliable. seefooddiet (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KMDb

[edit]

The Korean Movie Database gets referenced a lot; is it a reliable source? Does anyone know about the website? I know the American IMDb isn't, per WP:IMDB. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why IMDb is considered not reliable is because the content there are in part or in whole user generated. Every site is considered separately when assessing for reliability. There is no indication on the KMDb website that the content there is user generated with a cursory glance. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise do share with the rest here or at WP:RSN. – robertsky (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right; I just wasn't sure how its content is written. I was hoping someone was, and would be able to quickly classify the page on this RS list 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking into this topic more, and have since spent a lot of time on that website while looking for VODs of old films. I'm nearly certain that the site is not user-generated. Every news article that I can find in Korean gives no indication of it being user-generated; they only talk about how the Korean Film Archive curates it.
I suspect the site is reliable because of this; it also has lots of useful information about old films that's otherwise hard to find. I'll add it to the RS list for now, please tag if disagree and I can revert. seefooddiet (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ready Steady Cut

[edit]

I think that Ready Steady Cut should be remove as unreliable as their reviews considered as one of the critics by Rotten Tomatoes and their articles are mostly use in "Reception" section of TV-related articles.

What's everyone takes on this? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 12:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Paper9oll as the one who added it on the list. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 12:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, I added the source to the list because it was QUESTIONABLE and SPSEXPERT at that time, or something similar was observed like you know those three "notable" unreliable English sources reporting on Korean news. Additionally, if I remember correctly, there was also WP:PROMO WP:SOCKing at that time for this source, where there was a sudden influx of introductions of this source to English Wikipedia for the first time, combined with its QUESTIONABLE and SPSEXPERT articles and disclosure. Regardless, I am fine with removing the source from the list entirely (intentional bolding so that it is not to be confused with upgrading the status) given their rather and slightly "improved" disclosure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information, it make sense now why it was added. And I agree with your last sentence. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 13:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brunch and user-generated contents

[edit]

I've noticed Brunch is used as a source here. This is not a proper news source, but a blog website managed by Kakao Corps that attracts user generated contents similar to Medium. It therefore is explicitly unreliable per WP:UGC and generally should not be used. I created this topic to discuss if there're more user-generated contents unknowingly used like this. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged to response. Yup, pretty much the Korean version of Medium. No objection to adding this to the WP:KO/RS#UR list, usage is currently at 44 counts. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious case of WP:UGC; I'll add it to the list. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with this take too. seefooddiet (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ddanzi Ilbo

[edit]

Ddanzi Ilbo (link) is an internet news website founded by Kim Ou-joon in 1998. It's one of the more infamous news website due to its satirical contents, more casual standards of article, and the association with Kim Ou-joon himself (a topic too complicated to discuss here).

I bring up this website because it's often regarded as "news media" by many, perhaps because it's been around so long, but in my opinion, it's more like a joke-y internet forum.

  • About Us has no mention of editorial policy or list of journalists.
  • Most news articles are written by anonymous authors who are only credited as their nicknames.
  • The news section constitutes only a small part of website. A large part of the website is dedicated to the promotion of Ddanzi Market, its online store, and others are anonymous forums.

I can't see this as a reliable source in any definition, but I want to hear other opinions about it. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not reliable per comment. I've never read anything from them before. seefooddiet (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of this source before either. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't suggest using Ddanzi Ilbo as a reliable source because it focuses more on humor and opinions than on facts. The content is often one-sided and doesn't follow the same reporting rules as trusted sources like Yonhap News or The Korea Herald. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 10:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same views as the above. No objection to inclusion into WP:KO/RS#UR. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitree

[edit]

Wikitree (link) is a wiki-style website created in 2009/2010 by Kim Haing. The website's goal, at first, was to provide a platform open for everybody to sign up, and write their own article like wiki (hence the name). In other words, it's citizen journalism like OhmyNews, and should be unreliable per WP:UGC. Although the current website doesn't mention this policy any more, their announcement post on October 2, 2010 (the one that says "위키트리가 새 단장 했습니다.") proves what I wrote is true.

Its login function appears to be currently disabled – the noticeboard above says the "wiki journalism" was aborted on February 1, 2019 – but this doesn't matter, since the website still makes no attempt in clarifying which articles are originally user-generated contents or not. I can't find anything about its current editorial policy or list of staff, either; no mention of them on its About Us page. Wikitree articles were constantly criticized by other news media as low-quality and sensationalist ([66] [67] [68], [69]).

Long story short, Wikitree is mostly WP:UGC and most certainly not a reliable source, and the fact that this is cited in living person articles is concerning. I'd like to suggest adding this to UR list, and removing this from articles as soon as possible. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding into WP:KO/RS#UR. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Safe to WP:BOLDly add to UR seefooddiet (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in case you're not already applying this logic, try to focus on sources that you've seen be used on the English Wikipedia before; the more use it sees the better. If sources are very rarely used, maybe not worth including on our unreliable sources list. seefooddiet (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll follow it; the reason I brought it up here is because the website was used by over 80 articles. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SisaIN

[edit]

SisaIN (link) is a monthly print news magazine fitst published in 2007, founded by former journalists from Sisa Journal. It's technically behind paid subscription for both print and web version, but almost all published contents become available for free after some interval.

Its About Us page is comprehensive and promising. To recap:

  • As mentioned above, the page claims the founding members were formerly of Sisa Journal, a weekly news media established in 1989. I can confirm this is true; the current publisher Lee Suki (이숙이) first got the job there back in 1991 (Mediatoday article), and this photo from OhmyNews shows those Sisa Journal employees at the time, many of which currently still work in SisaIN. Sisa Journal is a generally reputable source, so it's natural to assume SisaIN is also reliable.
  • About Us page has a list of every employee, which makes it easy to track their credentials. It also lists editorial committee members near the bottom, which means they have some form of an editorial control.
  • Its history page lists several awards SisaIN received, like the one from "민주언론시민연합" (can't find a translation for this) in 2023.
  • The magazine is part of the Journalists Association of Korea.

I check its articles for a while and I find that its field report, interviews and the sorts are of reasonable quality. I'd like to list this as reliable. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read much from them, but the few articles I have read seemed reliable enough. seefooddiet (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Browsing through some of their recent non-paywall articles, I haven't find any red flags to suggest otherwise ... I would say it's reliable to me. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it to the list since there's no disagreement. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources/Archive_1&oldid=1260817005"