Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources#Center for Historical Truth and Justice

Had a discussion on the VRoTJD here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty. I asked a kinda dumb question that I should have known the answer to, but the conversation may be useful to others though. I think I can do a writeup of a description of its reliability for our list.

I think we should rate it as NOCON (yellow). It's not reliable nor necessarily unreliable. It's an old primary source.

For reference, the VRoTJD is cited directly many times on Wikipedia, at [http://sillok.history.go.kr/main/main.jsp]. Should ideally deemphasize these citations and replace them with modern scholarly interpretations of the VRoTJD.

Lmk thoughts seefooddiet (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not an expert historian. But I'd consider it can be reliable overall. The Veritable Records is known for having a strict policy to depict something as is, with the writer granted technical immunity from even the king. One incident I know is Taejong of Joseon asking the officer not to write about him falling off a horse. The officer went on to record all of that.[https://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kca_10402008_004]

:Being a primary source doesn't mean it can't be trusted (see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), and I think this book has credibility to it. The reliability may fluctuate between eras, and this is something editors should check the secondary source for, but I don't think citing it directly harms the articles necessarily. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::Still thinking about it. I think your arugment is fair too, but I still lean towards NOCON.

::Several reasons:

::* That they often wrote about things from the lens of their understanding of the world and their time.

::** We now have much more developed understandings of science, medicine, etc. I don't have an example on hand, but I imagine they might have tried to describe why certain people died; their medical analysis wouldn't be reliable by modern standards.

::** As another example, they might write about supernatural things (like x being bad luck or y being good luck).

::** [https://sillok.history.go.kr/id/knb_12504014_001] This is a record from the Imjin War. They make a series of estimates or claims about numbers/sizes of things here that may not stand up to modern scrutiny. It's unlikely they knew these numbers with certainty and were only providing approximate estimates, but that's not clarified, nor is the methodology of how they derived these numbers clear. Furthermore, a lot of this information is driven by hearsay; limited records from the time, likely almost entirely from the Korean perspective. Modern scholarship would be able to encompass the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean perspectives of this war.

::*** Also, remember that the Korean government had their own perspective on Yi Sun-sin; I don't know what perspective is reflected in the Sillok, but I imagine it's one of several contemporary perspectives that modern scholarship now aggregates.

::** [https://sillok.history.go.kr/id/knb_12504014_028] Another example. This record states with relative certainty that the palaces in Seoul were burned down by civilians during the war, but I know of at least one modern scholar that disputes this claim. History of Gyeongbokgung#Destruction and disuse. Historians of the time went by the materials that they had access to; modern historians can sometimes have access to other materials that they lacked.

::* The fact that the source is a primary source is, in some sense, a need for caution to be exercised. Rather than giving a wholehearted endorsement of the source, I think it makes more sense to alert people with a notification that its use should be situational and even minimized when possible.

::seefooddiet (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Emiya Mulzomdao I'm going to boldly add this to the list as NOCON; there's been a broader discussion where more people have chimed in. They also didn't reach absolute consensus, although a majority seem to have the opinion that it's a primary source. Still, no consensus there either. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm fine with that. The original texts are written in Chinese characters that need translation even for Korean language speakers, so I think the secondary sources generally work better for these sort of analysis. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I guess it safe to add [https://biz.heraldcorp.com The Herald Business] and [https://www.heraldpop.com Herald Pop] here or do they need more discussions? 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 23:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think The Herald Group was discussed here at all before. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Herald Corporation, falls under WP:NEWSORG. Yes CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like to raise the question of whether Naver profiles (such as those on Naver People) are sufficiently reliable for use as sources on Wikipedia, particularly for South Korean idols and actors.

These profiles commonly provide basic information such as birthdate, agency, and debut year, and appear to reflect official data. However, they generally lack citations, and the party responsible for updating the information is often unclear.

I am particularly uncertain about relying on these profiles to verify group roles, such as leader or vocalist, since such details are seldom clearly sourced and may represent unofficial designations.

An editor informed me that one profile contains the note: "본인 또는 대리인이 직접 관리하는 정보입니다" (“Managed directly by the individual or their representative”), which lends some credibility. Nonetheless, without verification from a third-party source, I question whether this satisfies Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing.

In conclusion, while Naver profiles may be acceptable for basic, non-controversial information when no superior sources are available, caution is advised when using them for more detailed claims.

I welcome further discussion on this matter. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:[https://myprofile.naver.com/registerguide This page] describes the company's policy on how they add information to Naver Profile. Two notable things is that profiles are categorized per profession (the table below details how this is done) and verified by an organization called {{ill|Korea Internet Self-Governance Organization|ko|한국인터넷자율정책기구}}, and this process relies on documents submited by the person of interest themselves.

:KISO was founded in 2009 by major Korean portal websites like Naver and Kakao per [https://www.kiso.or.kr/kiso%ec%86%8c%ea%b0%9c/%ed%9a%8c%ec%9b%90%ec%82%ac-%ec%86%8c%ea%b0%9c/ member page], which puts it slightly above other fan websites in terms of reliability. But I can't find out exactly who monitors and conducts this process. Information page like [https://myprofile.naver.com/noticeView?noticeId=14 this] only says it has a committee consisting of "external experts" without mentioning who they are. The fact that they use a person's documents as basis for their database doesn't fare well.

:There are some reports that Naver Profile has tried to filter out false information [https://www.khan.co.kr/article/201310011039361]. I think the company put some efforts for this, but without further information it can't be trusted entirely. It might be usable for non-controversial persons, but should be avoided if the person is known for fabricating their own record, since Naver Profile sources from those primary information. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Given that these profiles are displayed directly within Naver Search's search engine results page, they function similarly to the Google Knowledge Graph—moderators may vet submissions before they appear. Even if some information may be accurate in terms of general knowledge, I wouldn't use them here under any circumstances; likewise, no sensible editor would ever use a Google search result as a citation. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::What are yall's thoughts on treating Naver Profiles as primary sources for basic information? Personally, I’m hesitant to use them that way, since I still see them as being closely tied to Naver’s search system rather than as standalone, verifiable sources. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 04:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::While it may seem that a profile "managed directly by the individual or their representative" might lends some additional credibility—at least compared to anonymous or user-edited entries—Wikipedia's sourcing standards remain clear. According to WP:PRIMARY, information provided directly by a subject or their representative is considered a primary source and should be used with caution, limited to straightforward, uncontroversial facts. Even then, we cannot assume such sources are entirely reliable for all claims. For example, a group leader might change, but the profile could remain outdated; or an agency might exaggerate achievements for publicity, leaving Wikipedia vulnerable to echoing promotional or selective narratives. This is precisely why WP:VERIFY and WP:OR require that content be verifiable through independent, reliable sources, rather than relying solely on what the subject themselves (or their representative) says—even if it is ostensibly "true". As WP:TRUE aptly summarizes, the test for inclusion is not truth alone, but verifiability through reputable sources. Without this standard, Wikipedia risks becoming a platform for unchecked or one-sided information, no matter how authoritative a profile may appear. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::So, would we be in agreement to add Naver profiles—since they are often managed by the individual or their agency—to the list of unreliable sources? This would help ensure editors don’t rely on them too much without independent verification. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 06:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{Reply to|Btspurplegalaxy}} It would have been nice to get a ping or notification of this discussion, since it was started in response to my messages on your talk page, instead of me stumbling into it four days later. Instead, you created a negatively slanted thread towards using Naver Profiles as a primary source when the point of contention was the members' positions at ZE:A, not any actual controversial claims. Any reliable source that supports the member positions of any group will have gotten that information directly from the agency. These sources do not guess or decide that information. You're on the doorstep of supporting the removal of member positions entirely from K-pop group articles. ✗plicit 11:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

ChosunBiz is doing automatic machine translation without human review. For now, should mark autotranslations as unreliable. I don't know much about the rest of the reliability of the website, but can disqualify that part based on that alone. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Could I see a sample of its articles that use machine translation? ChosunBiz is an economics topic department of the corporation, so the Korean version may be as reliable as their other major news presses, although I personally find The Chosun Ilbo a mixed bag on the whole. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Most articles I can find on its English version were translated by OpenAI. [https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-society/2025/05/28/5FUGNDERAVG6ZN4WQSXFMYG5XU/][https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-industry/2025/05/22/P57HZKKKYVBL3BJPU5VUP5UMWE/]

::The Korean version of the site I'm not aware of any issues with. I'm just speaking about the English part. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Grapesurgeon: are you referring to the articles that state "This article has been translated by OpenAI."? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)