Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources#NamuWiki

Skye Daily has a huge string of controversies surrounding it. I'm only listing a few here because I think it'll be easy to get consensus for this.

[https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/1191584.html] Police raided Skye Daily office over a Jan 2024 story they made where they falsely reported that the US military in Korea had arrested 99 Chinese spies. [https://news.kbs.co.kr/news/view.do?ncd=8179065] Reporter was banned from leaving the country by police. [https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/media/1185341.html] This story eventually made it into Yoon's impeachment trials as evidence in defense of Yoon (Yoon alleged election fraud and Chinese interference), despite the story already having been dismissed by most people by that point. [http://m.journalist.or.kr/m/m_article.html?no=57900] Journalist Association of Korea describes the defenses of Skye Daily as cagey; the portrayal in the article is really unflattering.

[https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/media/1185341.html] Hankyoreh describing the paper as a "far-right media outlet". Hankyoreh alleges Skye Daily has been providing fringe stories. Skye Daily has been promoting the roundly dismissed narratives that there is election fraud committed by the left in South Korea, and consistently defended Yoon, even after the declaration of martial law.

Note: I'm not expressing political opinions about the above issues. I am solely going to evaluate these opinions by how mainstream they are in an international sense. I know the South Korean right wing claims that they're in the majority (questions around the legitimacy of that statistic), but internationally they're virtually alone. Thus, I think it's safe to say that these kinds of narratives are fringe.

I'd advocate for considering Skye Daily unreliable; should basically never be used. seefooddiet (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't agree that it {{xt|should basically never be used}}, as many of its reporters and editors work for reliable South Korean newspapers. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah I think my verdict was too harsh. Think it should be more situational. Maybe a WP:FOX-like situational split may be appropriate. I haven't seen much of its publishing outside of politics, but I imagine its lifestyle articles aren't egregious. seefooddiet (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:This isn't the first time Skye Daily published fringe opinions. Their articles from 2024 had claimed North Korea was involved in Gwangju Uprising. This is a conspiracy theory debunked by other major factions involved, including US government. [https://news.jtbc.co.kr/article/NB12196703][https://www.news1.kr/local/gwangju-jeonnam/5737278][https://www.mediatoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=325368][https://www.nocutnews.co.kr/news/6316890]

:Being right-wing or defending the former president doesn't factor in their reliability, but passing a highly exceptional fringe opinion as a fact is another story. These kind of incidents are an evidence that their editorial team likely lacks common sense to filter things out. I regard this as a low quality source and would not cite any articles from them that can potentially be controversial. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:@CherryPie94 @Emiya Mulzomdao would you agree with a WP:FOX-like split? Politics articles unreliable, other articles as no consensus? seefooddiet (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::That definitely sounds fine as a start. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'm okay with that. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Added ability to use shortcuts on the list, just like on WP:RS/P. E.g. WP:NAMUWIKI. To make the shortcut work, you need to:

1. Create a redirect page, like WP:NAMUWIKI (base on this code, but replace target page text).
2. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources/Shortcut|WP:NAMUWIKI}} (replace the WP:NAMUWIKI with the shortcut you made) as a template right after the source's name on the list (if you do it in the next line, it creates some ugly line breaks)
3. Right above the entry should be |- class=. After the class information, if there isn't already an id=, set it to be id="Namuwiki" or similar. If there's already an ID, we're probably using it for the letter for alphabetical shortcuts; in which case you can set the target page text in the redirect to just the letter, and leave the id= as it is.
4. * For redirects targetted to letters, we'll need to make sure they stay updated if the list changes in future in case the letter is no longer the id.

We ideally should only create shortcuts for sources that are really frequently questioned. seefooddiet (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:We should add and start a crackdown on Daum Cafe, which gets cited a lot for whatever reason. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Scrubbed all uses of it that aren't official sites of reliable organizations or blogs. Also made the shortcut seefooddiet (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The current description of Pen & Mike appears factually inaccurate and overly dismissive. Several corrections and clarifications should be made:

1. The founder is Jeong Kyu-jae (정규재), a former editorial writer and editor at The Korea Economic Daily (한국경제신문). Chun Young-sik is current president. [https://www.pennmike.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=86622]
2. The Google Play listing for the outlet’s app confirms the correct English name "Pen & Mike" [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pennmike.app&hl=en_US]
3. Pen & Mike displays affiliation with the Internet Newspaper Ethics Committee (인터넷신문윤리위원회) on its website and explicitly states it follows the Internet Newspaper Ethics Platform (인터넷신문윤리강령) [https://www.pennmike.com/com/com-3.html]. This shows formal recognition of journalistic standards in South Korea.
4. Pen & Mike leans strongly conservative and was considered far-right at its founding. However, its tone appears to have moderated slightly in recent years. While still clearly right-leaning, categorizing the outlet as solely "extremely minor fringe" based on a single controversial op-ed is does not necessarily disqualify WP:RS.
5. Regarding WP:USEBYOTHERS, Naver is presenting Pen & Mike, so does show a level of institutional recognition while this doesn't prove reliability?

Given above I recommend WP:RS. At minimum, WS:NOCON. 70.169.187.178 (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:To go through the points:

:* Neither Jeong Kyu-jae nor Chun Young-sik is known for renowned journalism, with Hankook Ilbo executive openly speaking against the former in regard to his interview with Park Geun-hye. [https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/201702142029131675][https://www.mediatoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=135128] Chun Young-sik also has his own scandal during his KBS tenure.[https://www.mediatoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=212020]

:* Internet Newspaper Ethics Committee is the lowest common denominator when it comes to Korean news media; it pretty much accepts any content farm with absolute minimum quality control, so it has D-tier outlet members like Dailian and Game Donga, both of which are infamous for sourcing a good number of their articles from internet forums. I already covered the former not too long ago. The organization does have notable media like Digital Chosun and Media Today, but the point is that being a member of it is not a gold standard.

:* Whether being right-wing or neutral has no bearing on reliability. What's true, though, is that publishing fringe views is a poor showing of the source. See WP:PARITY. I should also mention Pen & Mike (I'll assume this is the correct spelling) originally got its start from YouTube channel by Jeong Kyu-jae around 2013, which had been described by others as a source of fake news. [https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/863634.html][https://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/View/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0002481485]

:* What do you mean "Naver is presenting Pen & Mike"? [https://news.naver.com/main/officeList.naver Naver News aggregator sure as heck doesn't feature their articles]. If you're talking about the search engine, then no, being on search results doesn't mean it's reliable.

:I'm the one who suggested labelling it unreliable and I still stand by that opinion. The media doesn't have notable journalist (as in, someone who does quality exclusive reports), record of prestigious awards, and most importantly any public information on its editorial team. (For comparison from other independant news media, see how SisaIN has shared information about [https://www.sisain.co.kr/com/com-3.html their team as detailed as possible].) This website is not suitable for citation on Wikipedia. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Agree with Emiya Mulzomdao's arguments; none of the things listed by the IP user are particularly strong endorsements, and I was also confused by the implication that Naver News officially aggregates the source (Emiya's description of the scenario is correct). I don't think this comes close to the reliable rating that the IP user desires. NOCON seems inappropriate too; this source doesn't have enough significance to merit that rating either. At best this source seems like a minor player with a checkered, unflattering background. seefooddiet (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with some of Emiya Mulzomdao's clarification and WP:GUNREL. For instance, this article from The Joongang Ilbo [https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25321246] clearly criticizes Pen & Mike for disseminating fake news. The only notable source positively framing the outlet appears to be an interview with Pen & Mike by right-wing politician Cho Jung-hun [https://www.pennmike.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=96195], which raises concerns about self-promotion and bias.

::That said, I would like to point out a few things:

::* I suggest standardizing the outlet's name to Pen & Mike, as listed in the Google Play [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pennmike.app&hl=en_US], which appears to be the definitive source for the English rendering of the name at this moment.

::* The cited source #33 is from OhmyNews, which is not considered a reliable source under Wikipedia.

::* I was unable to find Game Donga among the source list. This could be further discussed in a different topic.

::* Regarding Jeong, I disagree Emiya Mulzomdao's assertion that he is not known for journalism. Serving as chief editorial writer at The Korea Economic Daily indicates at least a certain level of professional recognition and public visibility within the journalistic field. He is publicly regarded as a 'conservative commentator', as noted in multiple sources: [https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1172743.html], [http://m.monthly.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?ctcd=E&nNewsNumb=202502100021] and [https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/A2024121013250003659], "vitriolic" and "anti-conspiracy theoriest" commentor [http://pressian.com/pages/articles/2025032817460576084]. This demonstrates a degree of public recognition, though not necessarily reliability. He is also presented neutrally in multiple news outlet recently: [https://www.google.com/search?q=%EC%A0%95%EA%B7%9C%EC%9E%AC&tbm=nws]

::* As for Chun, while he has received at least one professional award [https://www.ytn.co.kr/_ln/0103_202411071701142462], I do not believe that alone establishes a clear basis for assessing the outlet’s reliability.

::* Regarding Naver, I want to clarify that Pen & Mike’s articles are discoverable via Naver’s search [https://search.naver.com/search.naver?ssc=tab.news.all&where=news&sm=tab_jum&query=%ED%8E%9C%EC%95%A4%EB%A7%88%EC%9D%B4%ED%81%AC], though this is distinct from formal inclusion in the Naver News aggregator. Visibility in search does suggest a certain level of indexing, but I agree this is not equivalent to editorial endorsement or institutional recognition.

::To clarify, while I initially raised the possibility of Pen & Mike meeting WP:RS criteria, I no longer support that classification at this time.

::Lastly, I would appreciate clarification on whether the outlet qualifies for a WP:NOCON rating, rather than being outright labeled as unreliable. While I lean toward WP:GUNREL, a stronger case may be needed to formally rule out even limited citation under contextually appropriate circumstances. I would push back slightly on the claim that the source lacks significance. Some political interviews have been conducted exclusively through Pen & Mike, which suggests a degree of relevance worth considering for inclusion on Wikipedia.

::In any case, Pen & Mike’s past coverage and framing of former President Park Geun-hye, including its founder’s interview with her, could reasonably be seen as a cautionary. 70.169.187.178 (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Jeong Kyu-jae does seem to have public presence on mainstream media recently, but this doesn't cancel out his YouTube podcast and other career. One might charatibly say his works have 50/50 reliability; that amount of ratio is still pretty bad for Wikipedia. I knew about Chun's award from Federation of Korean Journalists, but I ruled it out because this organization is established as recent as [http://www.kjournalist.org/01.php?sub=1 2023]. I think it's too early to consider it prestigious. My opinion is that these two persons are not enough to give the media credits.

:::As for interviews conducted by Pen & Mike, as such Park Geun-hye's, they fall under WP:ABOUTSELF and could be potentially cited, even if it's from questionable sources. It comes with a lot of restrictions, though. You'll have to prove the necessity of its inclusion yourself, per WP:ONUS. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I still maintain that Jeong merits some degree of media credit, particularly given his past role as chief editor of The Korea Economic Daily, which is a realiable media outlet.

::::Regarding content such as the Park Geun-hye impeachment (besides the interview) or commentary on the Gwangju Uprising, or would it be appropriate to apply WP:GUNREL for political topics where Pen & Mike is involved? For non-political topics, perhaps WP:NOCON would be a more relevant just like Skye Daily. 70.169.187.178 (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm still inclined to overall generally unreliable, given reasons above. This media doesn't stand out as an expert in coverage area, and it's more than likely to find better articles from mainstream media like The Chosun Ilbo or The Hankyoreh. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Needs discussion on Game Donga's relability. 70.169.187.178 (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources/Archive 2#The Dong-A Ilbo. It's operated by an obscure company called GameGru, so credential information about The Dong-A Ilbo doesn't apply to them. The staff consist of amateurs who have little to no prior journalist experience, and they frequently publish flame baits and FARTs with no real standards and poor sourcing. Not reliable. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Would anybody who is fluent in Korean be able to clarify whether the attendance in [https://www.thebell.co.kr/free/content/ArticleView.asp?key=202502031649174160109688&lcode=00&page=1&svccode=00# this source] says 20,349 people or 23,490 people ({{tq|2만349장으로}})? Because Google translate says the latter but Bing translate says the former. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:20,349 seefooddiet (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Needs discussion on Rhythmer's relability. [https://rhythmer.net/]

It is a online magazine that publishes hip hop music reviews, articles, and interview. Its founder Kang Il-kwon is a hip-hop and R&B critic who is also a judge of the Korean Music Awards.[https://www.hankyung.com/article/201702078321H] Other editors are also presented in the list of judges. [https://koreanmusicawards.com/kma2025/#002]

Kang is also presented in other media. [https://star.mbn.co.kr/all/6902789][https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2019/08/22/etc/Do-female-rappers-need-to-go-pop-to-succeed-Women-in-hiphop-face-sexual-harassment-and-fans-who-question-their-abilities/3067113.html][https://www.sisain.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=53861][https://tenasia.hankyung.com/article/2015082645094] 70.169.187.178 (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:If Kang Il-kwon is an established subject-matter expert and his work was published in independant reliable publication, you could cite their works per WP:SPS. The website seems to do a lot of exclusive interviews, but it's not very huge on traffic and has a group blog feel to it. I'd contemplate on citing it per case. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)