Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Yonhap News - reliability questioned?

This is a topic regarding Yonhap News I couldn't find a record of being discussed before. I think it's an important enough issue to raise here.

In August 2021, the Committee for Evaluation of News Partnership (a joint audit committee formed from several journalism-related organizations; read here) decided to put a severe sanction on Yonhap by advising news aggregator portals to cease exposure of its contents. The term was originally 32 days at that time, but it was extended to 1 year in November 2021 when Yonhap failed to pass re-evaluation at the end of the year. Reason for this ban was that Yonhap committed felony by disguising sponsored articles as regular ones and got paid for it: a total of 649 articles between March and July 2021.

Yonhap originally admitted to the misdeed and took the deal on August 19, but this changed after the second sanction, when President Seong Gihong decided to pursue legal actions to lift the ban because it considered this as an unjust censorship of journalism (for the record, the Committee is not a governmental agency, which raised transparency and fairness issues). On December 24, 2024, Yonhap got its injunction approved by the court on the basis that the ban was a breach of contract between Yonhap and portals, and returned to Naver and Daum news sections. Nevertheless, this did not affect the original accusations against it; Yonhap was criticized by other organizations (check the articles above as well as these: [1][2][3]).

This is a serious charge given that Wikipedia discourages paid advertisement articles per WP:SPONSORED, and this must be reflected to the list in my opinion. I suggest degrading it to situational (evaluate its use on a case-by-case basis) or generally unreliable (self explanatory). Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, although I feel we should only downgrade the source's reliability for that time period. YNA is used extensively; downgrading its overall reliability, including for articles before and after the scandal, would have dramatic implications. seefooddiet (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the list here is catered for such scenario, currently it's "good-bad" system. If really want to include such then maybe consider the "traffic light" system utilized by WP:RSPSS? But this require the entire list revamp including merging WP:KO/RS#R and WP:KO/RS#UR together since "red" in the "traffic light" system denotes unreliable. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

We can specify the incident in the notes column until the R and UR tables are merged; I do want that to happen eventually. seefooddiet (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a separate accusation from Media Today, which claims one journalist in Yonhap News published around 2,000 sponsored articles from October 2019 to July 2021. Media Today is a reputable source and cited a lot (like this), and Yonhap News ultimately removed all of those 2,000 articles, so it's safe to assume this claim is also true. This shouldn't be ignored.

Yonhap News is a news media with long history and I couldn't find a proof that its editorial system is fundamentally defective, so I think there's still some value in Yonhap News for now. This is why I suggest putting the source into "situational" label so that editors can refer to it but have to be more careful when its articles seem suspicious. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Per above, I think maybe we could put a note of caution but otherwise keep it in reliable for now. This could change once the table is expanded to have multiple levels of reliability.

Do you know of any other similar scandals? Flipping through the criticisms namuwiki page, it seems like most other issues are more minor one-off mistakes or oversights. seefooddiet (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find any more issues of similar scale from Yonhap. I do not object keeping Yonhap for now, as long as its past sanction is properly noted. I wouldn't refer to namu for anything serious. It has little difference from anonymous gossip boards. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of namuwiki's issues. It has uses as a jumping off point for researching things; otherwise everything else on it can be ignored. I end up not believing a good chunk of what's on it, but for pages like this a skeptical look can inform you of the worst case for something. That's still information. seefooddiet (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Segye Ilbo

Segye Ilbo (link) is a newspaper media first printed in 1989. This media is owned by News World Communications, which was founded by NRM group Unification Church. Its history page says the founding director was Sun Myung Moon himself.

Things I learned from its About Us page:

• The paper filed an application for serial publication to governmental entity Ministry of Culture ＆ Tourism (currently Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism) on February 24, 1988. It got the official approval on April 25, 2 months later. [4]
• Its awards page lists numerous awards from various organizations, like the "Gender Equality Media Award" from the central government last year.
• Segye Ilbo is a member of Journalists Association of Korea, and also received a number of awards from it.
• This section covers major exclusive reports from it, like this article covering National Intelligence Service's scandal.

Obviously, Segye Ilbo would generally be a controversial WP:PRIMARY source for anything related to Unification Church, or religion in general, due to its unquestionable connections to the religious movement. Otherwise, I didn't find any major proofs that this is a low quality source. It's generally followed ordinary editorial procedures like the other reliable sources, and the fact that it joined Journalists Association of Korea is a major plus, because it requires maintaining some quality control for its contents. I think it is generally reliable, so long as the article topic doesn't clash with its religious movement origin and other WP:COI issues. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with this assessment. I knew of the link to the unification church but hadn't put in the work to verify quality otherwise. Thanks for doing this work! seefooddiet (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Reformatting page

I'm moving everything to a table, in a similar style to WP:RSPSS, still WIP at time of writing. I avoided making controversial or significant changes; the list should be mostly the same. I added textual descriptions of each source, but tried to keep each one brief to avoid controversy. Please poke me if you disagree, I'm happy to stop and discuss.

Note: in the process of doing so, I removed a couple of sources from the RS list. Some of them are defunct, some I'm skeptical of their reliability so WP:BOLDly took action. Here they are:

Removed these because I'm unsure of their reliability or they're defunct:

• Newsen
• Kuki News
• My Daily
• Maxim Korea
• Osen
• Sinhan Minbo
• Star N
• Star News
• Travel Bike News

A source I added ages back but it's not strongly related enough:

• Wilson Center Digital Archive

A couple sources I'm unsure of I left on the list, but I marked them as "Needs discussion'. My methodology here for filtering sources wasn't really rigorous, but honestly the list's compilation wasn't in the first place. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Newsen and Osen have long been considered reliable by the community (at least in the time I've been part of it) so they should be restored. Honestly, I wouldn't have removed them without first finding out what the consensus on them is, as such an action could have potentially made others (particularly less experienced editors) think there was suddenly a problem concerning the usage of both of these sources (they're used prolifically across the Project after all). Outside of those two, idk which of the other sources you've listed are now defunct, but becoming defunct doesn't particularly mean a strike against a source's reliability either. To the best of my knowledge, both the Sinhan Minbo and My Daily were/are fine, as are Star N and Star News (for entertainment-related news among other things). Kuki News was a source that started being used on WP in more recent years iirc, but I can't really cmmt on its reliability as I'm not familiar with it in detail. Travel Bike is the same, though the latter and the former meet most of the proponents for reliability per WP policy. Maxim Korea might have inherited reliability, to an extent, from its parent Maxim, like Rolling Stone/Rolling Stone Korea/Rolling Stone India, but I've never used it myself so I can only say that at a glance it appears reliable for entertainment-related content. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I do appreciate what you tried to do (though I don't think the simpler list was so terrible to the point it needed a complete overhaul). Will you overhaul the Unreliable section at some point also? There's been numerous discussions abt certain sources on that list over the years so it'd be good to have them linked and easily accessible in a centralized place. Not everyone knows to check the talk page archives (or even bothers to do that tbh). The only reason I'm not offering to help you do it is because my anxiety affects my editing (I edited this comment five times before feeling comfortable enough with the wording to post it) so I only get minimally involved with things anymore. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this is the ip that made these changes. Agree with your concerns, and I'll start acting on them. seefooddiet (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm reading into this more now, but I'm a little skeptical with the argument about status quo for keeping the sources in. I've gone through the archives for this talk page, and imo there's hardly discussion of even the most reliable sources.

When a source makes it onto our reliable sources list, we're essentially making an endorsement of its reliability. Even if a source has been widely used until now, that's not necessarily a guarantee that the source is reliable. Granted, maybe if nobody raised a red flag until now that's a good sign, but that's not necessarily how Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is constructed. For that list, there's a burden of proof to prove reliability for membership in the list. I think in an ideal world, we'd hold the same kind of standard when constructing this list.

Granted, we're a smaller WikiProject so maybe it doesn't make sense to apply that same level of scrutiny. But I'm on the fence. No burden to reply if this is anxiety-enducing btw, I'm mostly sharing general thoughts. Functionally, I'm going to do what you asked, but I have my reservations. seefooddiet (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You won't find discussions because there are some sources that most editors belonging to this project almost universally consider reliable, so they were added to the list without requiring discussion/extensive discussion. Project-specific discussions over acceptable/unacceptable project-specific sources don't always happen the same way discussions do on the general RSPSOURCES talk page, which is what I feel you were expecting to see here. So I'd say yes, to an extent you're holding this project's sources list to a higher degree of scrutiny than is warranted. Many discussions have also taken place on the talk pages of articles or on user talk pages, so you won't necessarily find them in the archives here either. Another thing I can see affecting your ability to get the detailed answers you're looking for is the lack of participation from other editors belonging to the project. Ik there are some who can provide far more detailed answers about Korean news sources than I possibly could, but I'm the only one who's responded to you so far.

Also, if Newsen and Osen have raised red flags for you, then you should share those specific concerns here, so that others can address them. If no one does, I can always tag a few editors I know and ask them to chime in and hopefully clear things up for you. Just keep in mind, it's also usually the burden of the one who disagrees with the current/apparent consensus to prove why they are right. The Music Project editors taught me that early on. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I may start scrutinizing the list more myself and starting discussions. Even in your first reply to me, the defense provided for a good number of the sources mentioned I'm skeptical of. Newsen and Osen I lean more receptive towards. seefooddiet (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

though I don't think the simpler list was so terrible to the point it needed a complete overhaul. It wasn't that the list is "terrible", it's that the new format has more features that I think most would agree are useful, like the languages and discussion links. I decided to overhaul the list because I've had discussions where people looked at the list and I got a sense that people didn't really fully grasp the information on it and the (lack of) rigor that went into creating it. Pointing out where discussions did and did not happen is important.

The unreliable list needs to be done too, yes, but admittedly not feeling the motivation to do it at the moment. seefooddiet (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If I may, where did you have these discussions and with whom? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Frankly I don't remember which exact discussions I had. It's been months for some of these discussions; this list reformatting was just on my to-do list for a long time.

The key thing is this: do you feel that the new list format is not helpful or worse than the original? If so, I'm genuinely happy to revert, I mean it. Per my OP, I acted boldly because I didn't expect pushback. Pushback means we go back to status quo. seefooddiet (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My issue was more with the removal of sources that shouldn't have been removed (which you and I already discussed above) than it was the attempted overhaul. I don't believe a revert is necessary, because like I said, I understand what you're trying to do. But at the same time, it was done a bit half-baked (hence why I asked if you were going to complete the other half of the page as well). With stuff like this, it's either get it right the first time, or leave it as is until the most refined version of what you're hoping to achieve is determined through discussion/consensus then implement that. That's how it usually works on RSPSOURCES. You'd have been reverted almost instantly and directed to open a discussion on the talk page lol.

Ik you said you're not really in the mood to complete it, but I think you should either convert the unreliable section into a table to match the reliable section, or merge both into one big long list, like the RSPSOURCES list. A color key to demarcate sources that definitely should not be used would be very helpful also. Then, over time, link the various discussions about each source as you find them. But don't abandon it, because it currently looks weirdly incomplete almost. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I conceded on the removal of sources, and added them back in.

The reformatting is indeed incremental; I was upfront about that. But I'm consistent about moving things in the right direction over time. Completing the table will come. I'll admit working incrementally is sometimes not the best (although there's minimal harm in this case; we intentionally deemphasize the unreliable sources), but it's just my editing style.

And I'm aware this isn't RSPSOURCES; I gave it less rigor specifically because there wasn't much rigor put into the process in the first place. I don't deserve to be laughed at for trying to do the right thing. seefooddiet (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed the last sentence you wrote while scrolling the talk page today hence my only addressing that now. I was laughing in recollection of some of the things I've seen go down across there/how some of those conversations went in situations similar to this one, not at you or what you've been doing/attempting to do. Sorry if it made you think otherwise (and tbh I didn't even realize I'd typed "lol" in that response until rereading my comment today). -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's fine, thanks. Appreciate the apology seefooddiet (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging you here Seefooddiet as you're the one who used that IP address, right? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 04:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you seefooddiet (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Media Today

Media Today is a weekly magazine founded in January 1989 by National Union of Mediaworkers. This one specifically focuses on media criticism and monitor of other Korean news media, publishing articles that criticize fabrication and intolerance in mainstream papers.

Its About Us introduction includes the History tab covers its entire development from 1988 to the current year. It lists awards received, such as Ahn Jong Pil Award in 2015. Media Today has had a lot of notable journalists, like Kim Jongbae (김종배), who had produced multiple television programs on MBC; Nam Yeongjin (남영진), who became KBS executive; Jo Yunho (조윤호), a prolific book writer; and so on.

Media Today is a source that gets cited by other media a lot (I already mentioned one at Yonhap News analysis, and there's this article on Journalists Association in July 2024. It also received numerous congratulatory messages on 25th anniversary), and frequently does collaborated reports with others (like this article), so I think it can be reliable. However, due to its purpose, it has had friction with numerous news organizations many times over (Media Today has generally aggressive relationship with The Chosun Ilbo due to a huge number of articles covering them, and its journalist getting sued by MBC in 2019 is just another example), and its articles can get opinionated as a result. I suggest not using it as a sole source in Wikipedia when crosschecking. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable conclusion seefooddiet (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Bluedot websites (AI-generated content farms)

Bluedot is a product developed by AI startup company Mediasphere, founded in 2021, whose purpose is to promote and sell their AI models, which can quickly generate images, articles and other supplementary materials for content farms. It has no standards for editorial process whatsoever.

This page lists customers that use its product. At least two of them made their way to Wikipedia:

• Korea Exposé [5]: A blog website directly owned by Mediasphere. 55 results.
• Zenerate [6]: Another website owned by Mediasphere. 24 results.

Suggesting these to be added in unreliable sources due to their lack of reliable staff and editorial control. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Think it's probably safe to put both as unreliable.

For Korea Exposé, it seems at best WP:QUESTIONABLE and seems like a blog. Articles seem to mostly be opinion pieces that often present opinion as fact. The articles don't seem obviously machine-generated to me, but I can't rule out the possibility. I doubt it meets WP:USEBYOTHERS either. I don't think we're missing much of substance if we restrict its use.

Zenerate has more or less the same issues. Lot of fluff in its articles, example. I don't know if this is machine-generated; has a lot of charts and graphics that I've yet to see AI generate anything like (although it's certainly doable, I could train a model to do this). Don't think we're missing out on much if we restrict it. seefooddiet (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation is that it's not entirely AI generated from scrathc, but is creating from provided collaterals and fill the gap in-between.

Either way, it's clear that Korea Exposé and Zenerate are not meant to be a genuine information source, but a sample by Mediasphere to promote their products. A lot of cited pages are already 404-fied; this and this is a cited source from multiple K-pop articles, but the link doesn't work. Definitely poor and unreliable sources from all reasons stated above. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's safe to add both to unreliable sources btw. seefooddiet (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sisa Journal

Sisa Journal (link) is a weekly news magazine founded by Seoul Media Publishing in 1989. Its About Us states it started as a "review journalism" media that summarizes general South Korea issues and predicts its future course.

Some factoids:

• Sisa Journal is a host of Good Company Coference yearly event since 2013, where they invite a number of celebrities for its "review journalism" discussion.
• It's a member of Journalists Association of Korea.
• Its About Us details exclusive reports in 2010s that were cited by other media, like Korean Veterans Association affairs report in 2015.

Sisa Journal is famous for being a subject of Samsung dispute in 2006, where Sisa Journal president Geum Changtae ordered the editorial team not to publish an article about Samsung's executive. It ended with a massive strike and later exodus of its journalists (most of which formed SisaIN, a source I discussed earlier). Articles covering this incident: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]

I think Sisa Journal meets standards of reliable sources, but the time period around the Samsung dispute should be left out. My suggest cutoff point is 2003 (the year Geum Changtae became its president) to 2012 (when Kwon Daewoo became president; it's not a clean point, but it's under this administration that exclusive reports listed on About Us showed up, and it's also when Sisa Journal started receiving awards from the likes of Journalists Association). Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

2003 to 2012 for all topics is too significant of a restriction imo. Maybe a topic block for that period may be ok. seefooddiet (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the topic block and leaving open for the other uses. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Is The Honey Pop a reliable source?

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for guidance on whether The Honey Pop (link) should be considered a reliable source for citations on Wikipedia, particularly in articles related to K-pop and pop culture.

The Honey Pop is a fan-driven website that publishes entertainment news, reviews, and articles about music and popular culture, including K-pop. The Honey POP is geared towards 15–25-year-olds and is run by a team of young creatives who are fans themselves. The website's content includes news and opinion pieces that share stories from the fans' own viewpoint. While the site seems to offer well-written articles, I have some concerns about its reliability:

1. Editorial Oversight: It’s unclear whether The Honey Pop has strong editorial oversight or a fact-checking process similar to more reputable outlets. Given that it's fan-driven, its editorial standards may not be as rigorous as more established sources.
2. Potential Bias: The site seems to focus on promoting content that is of interest to pop culture fans, which could introduce a certain level of bias or promotional tone that doesn't align with Wikipedia's neutrality requirements.
3. Not Widely Recognized: While the website might be popular within certain fan communities, it doesn’t seem to be recognized as an authoritative or independent source within the broader media landscape.

Based on these points, my initial assessment is that The Honey Pop might not meet Wikipedia’s reliability criteria (WP:RS), but I’d like to hear other editors' opinions. Should The Honey Pop be considered unreliable and added to the list of sources to avoid, or are there circumstances where it could be used?

Looking forward to your thoughts! RDWolfgang (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The About Us details that they consist of authors "born of friendship and a passion for writing"... Not a good sign of professional journalism. I can't find much hint of credentials to elevate it beyond a fansite. My vote is "unreliable". Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree, and I think we should avoid using this site as a reference in any article, even if it is not a BLP. To get more opinions I have also added the topic here and pinged you there.

Anyone else interested in joining the discussion is welcome to share their thoughts. RDWolfgang (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Since we both agree that this site is essentially a fan site and should not be used as a source in any article, I believe it would be best to gather input from other editors. If there’s a consensus, we can then move forward with adding it to the unreliable sources list. I am pinging @Seefooddiet @Paper9oll in this discussion since I've noticed their frequent participation. Can we proceed with adding it to the unreliable list? RDWolfgang (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No objection for inclusion into WP:KO/RS#UR — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Support inclusion on the unreliable sources list. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Paper9oll and @Carlobunnie, for your quick responses and support on this matter. Since we all agree on including this site in the unreliable sources list, I will go ahead and make the addition. RDWolfgang (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Dates used by EKS

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

 – seefooddiet (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Does the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture use lunisolar (lunar) or Gregorian dates? Do they use lunisolar for articles on pre-1892 articles and Gregorian on contemporary ones? 00101984hjw (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It may be hard to determine by default. I think you should just treat all dates skeptically from it. I do notice that they tend to use lunisolar pre 1892, but it's not a universal practice. And unfortunately they often don't state what calendar they're using for dates.

Example, Seo Jae-pil's article uses his gregorian birth year (1864). His lunisolar birth year is 1863. seefooddiet (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

For dates where the precise day of the year is unknown would it even be possible for them to convert from lunisolar to Gregorian?

For example Yun Bong-gu is known to be born in 1683 but the precise month and day are unknown, so presumably if they converted it to Gregorian it could be 1683 or 1684 depending on what lunar month he was born in.

So either they synthesized some information to determine his Gregorian year, or they're using his Lunisolar year here. RachelTensions (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think no, not possible unfortunately... I think it's worth clarifying on Wikipedia that it's unknown whether the date is lunisolar or Gregorian seefooddiet (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Might be worth adding a note about dates to its listing at WP:KO/RS RachelTensions (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that. I'll also add a note to the MOS about date conversions seefooddiet (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Oof. I guess that would also mean there’s a ton of articles out there with lunisolar/Gregorian discrepancies? — 00101984hjw (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes ☺️ seefooddiet (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't foresee myself becoming an overly-active editor on articles where lunisolar calendar comes into play (not my cup of tea), but is there a template or MOS passage that should be followed when a date is only available in lunisolar? MOS:NUM seems to only cover Julian and Gregorian but makes no mention of lunisolar RachelTensions (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think we have a template for that. — 00101984hjw (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No template; I imagine the explanation may differ each time so maybe best not to prescribe practice. Maybe just rely on taste of editors. seefooddiet (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess when conversion is impossible because only the year is known it might be more appropriate to use just use {{circa}} to denote the event occurred around that time (because it could be one of two years) (MOS:CIRCA) RachelTensions (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes that may be feasible. That may be worth a suggestion in the MOS. seefooddiet (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. "Circa" is ambiguous because it can imply an unclear solar date; better to be precise and state that it's a lunisolar year and that conversion is not possible. seefooddiet (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Beware of Chosun Ilbo

Moved from Talk:Song Hye-kyo § Beware of Chosun Ilbo

 – — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is based on dozens and dozens of articles from the Chosun Ilbo, a highly unreliable South Korean newspaper.[12] I think we should find replacement sources. Mhorg (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe the paper as highly unreliable. I've read that controversy section numerous times and am very familiar with the Chosun Ilbo's work. The potential unreliability especially doesn't extend to news about an actress in the entertainment sector. Think this sentiment can be disregarded. seefooddiet (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree and also I'm using this script which is really helpful to me as it determine sources whether it is WP:GREL (green), WP:MREL (yellow), or WP:GUNREL (red) depending on their reliability. According to the script, Chosun Ilbo is within yellow. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 19:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That script may not be too useful for Korea-related topics btw; I don't think there are any significant Korea-related sources on the perennial sources list. seefooddiet (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP is not just cover of the script but others like WP:KO/RS (see the list here). 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see, thanks seefooddiet (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to any specific instances where Chosun Ilbo has provided unreliable information? The Chosun Ilbo is a highly regarded newspaper and a newspaper of record. The "Controversies" section at The Chosun Ilbo makes mention of possible bias with regard to North Korea that might warrant a note being put on their entry at WP:KO/RS about those topics, but I don't see how that has any bearing on their coverage of an actress. RachelTensions (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Tons of fakes about North Korea debunked by leading western sources. For example, Telegraph:[13] "Then in August, Chosun Ilbo, a South Korean newspaper with close links to that country’s intelligence services, reported that Hyon and eleven other well-known performers had been caught making a sex tape and executed. [...] 'Executed' Kim Jong-Un girlfriend reappears on North Korea television" Mhorg (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle:[14] "One example is the bizarre hairstyle of the young dictator: Kim Jong Un is said to have forced his male comrades to sport the same hipster cut as he. Yet it was just another fake story that attracted worldwide media attention; one that could have been easily disproven by anyone who has ever walked through the streets of Pyongyang. But Friday's false execution story is worthy of special consideration. The news was trumpeted by Chosun Ilbo — an outlet notorious for its dubious and politically motivated reporting on its northern neighbor. There was only one source — an anonymous one, naturally."

It seems strange to me that it has not yet been labelled in red (WP:GUNREL). I think this should be done. Mhorg (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This concerns North Korea, which is barely related to Song Hye-kyo. South Korean media has been wrong about North Korea countless times due to the topic's elusive nature. This incident does not discredit Chosun Ilbo, only that its North Korea rumors are unreliable.

This is a 2019 article about why they keep getting wrong about North Korea. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

These examples pertain to the already mentioned possible bias with regard to North Korea but don’t indicate why there’d be concern about citing The Chosun Ilbo in an article about an actress that has nothing to do with North Korea or why’d they’d be considered generally unreliable.

A healthy dose of skepticism and common sense needs to be used when citing sources on topics like that when the source’s country of origin has a long and contentious history with the subject’s country. I wouldn’t implicitly trust a South Korean source on North Korean topics any more than I’d trust a Ukrainian source to report on Russia. The chance of bias is high, even from what is an otherwise reliable source.

But it has nothing to do with an actress. RachelTensions (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The Chosun Ilbo is considered one of the most right-leaning South Korean newspapers, so I would advise caution when using its articles (especially with WP:RSOPINION cases) on political topics. Nevertheless, I find it trustworthy outside of politics. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Maeil Business Newspaper

Would the Maeil Business Newspaper be considered a reliable source? lullabying (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source. The newspaper is like those other Comprehensive Daily newspaper in South Korea. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 20:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lullabying @98Tigerius one note, Maeil Business Newspaper has been using automatic machine translation using Naver Papago for its English, Japanese, and Chinese versions. I would only consider the Korean section reliable, related to Help:Translation#Avoid unedited machine translations. seefooddiet (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that. Thanks. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 09:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I added it to the list with my above caveat seefooddiet (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: 92 articles currently use machine translations from MK. seefooddiet (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A few days later, now it's 96; I suspect we're going to see a lot of this happening... seefooddiet (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Data manipulation suspision at Institute of Korean Future Cultural Studies

Very recent development over at Newstapa, which is a reputable source. Its 28 October 2024 article has made an accusation that Institute of Korean Future Cultural Studies, an opinion poll research group, had manipulated its poll data in 2021 People Power Party primary. Newstapa here claims it acquired Excel files, confirming that there were at least 8 cases where the raw data do not match the institute's final result.

The institute has already been in dispute this year due to its head Myeong Taegyun getting involved in affairs (the Newstapa article covers this, but for other references: [15], [16], [17]), but this is the first time somebody suggested a proof that its poll is likely manipulated. I'll have to see how the story develops further, but for now, any use of this organization should be barred. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Think probably minimally harmful to list as unreliable. I haven't done more rigorous reading btw, so treat my opinion with a grain of salt. Just seems like the source is probably not often used. seefooddiet (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Issue here is that, while not directly cited, this organization's poll had been cited by news media occasionally, including generally reliable sources. ([18], [19], [20]) With this developement, all those articles are reference-contaminated as well. There are fortunately plenty of other alternative research groups that news media cross-check with it, so it isn't too bad, but I think it is crucial to at least mention it here in case someone tries to push their works to be reliable in the future. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think probably ok to list them, with your caveat that they're opinion polling and that other sources may cite them seefooddiet (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of video on demand website as sourcing for place of birth

Would using a video on demand website that has actor's profile, be considered as reliable for sourcing the place of birth in {{Infobox person}} and/or prose form in Korean-related BLPs? I find their information WP:QUESTIONABLE as they don't disclose their source of origin in neither of disclosure policies as compared to reputable news sources where these information are often credited to the agency and/or when written as part of an interview with the actor hence should we discourage the use of such sources and/or add it to WP:KO/RS#UR with notes when sourcing BLP's information like date of birth, place of birth, etc? Two examples are Cinefox and Viki. The count for Cinefox is higher at 200+ usage compared to Viki at around 30+ usage as the former is actively being included into {{Infobox person}} of Korean-related BLPs inconjunction with the inclusion of district/gu and neighbourhood/dong, for example from "Seoul, South Korea" to "Daerim-dong, Yeongdeungpo District, Seoul, South Korea". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC); edited 07:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends on how those profiles are created and what Wikipedia editors' experiences are with the reliability of the information. seefooddiet (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I find it WP:QUESTIONABLE hence why I'm asking the community on their thoughts. I also couldn't find their policies disclosure other than privacy policy and terms & conditions for using their streaming services. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It'd be better to use a source that isn't paid streaming websites, such as KMDb from Korean Film Archive or the database from Korean Film Council. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

For context, the actor's profile are accessible free-of-charge without requiring subscription-access. As for KMDb or KFC databases, they don't list out the actor's place of birth, even in the scenario that they do, I wouldn't find it QUESTIONABLE compared to VOD streaming website where they gotten their information is also unclear. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You can search actor's birth date here at KOFIC. This database is verified from actors themselves, so it is very accurate, and as far as I know it's also where most third-parties borrow their information from. There is no fixed URL for each actor's page at KOFIC, however. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you got confused between date of birth and place of birth, I'm referring to the latter. Thanks for pointing out the former is possible for KOFIC. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)