Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

To be evaluated

Questionable probably

https://www.dispatch.co.kr

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

I believe that you meant to discuss instead of an actual WP:RFC which doesn't applies in this case since it wasn't WP:RFCBEFORE. Regardless, I don't find the 4 sources (minus Dispatch) questionable to be included as reliable status. However, for Korea Now, as it's part of Yonhap News Agency, I believe that anything published from 2019 to 2021, if applicable, would have a similar cautionary usage status as its parent. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the first two. I think MBC has had its fair share of scandals, but I would need to read into them.

[1] I've been consistently annoyed at the sensationalization Korea Now employs. Goes out of its way to make things seem more grizzly or scandalous. It also reports a decent amount of celebrity gossip, with a lack of care around headlines. I don't think it's unreliable (doesn't really notably report falsehoods), but we should treat it skeptically. Agree with Paper9oll on same caveats with YNA, although I think unlikely it was as involved in those scandals. seefooddiet (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the previous IP user, I want to add:

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

No objection to Marie Claire Korea. However sceptical on Cinefox as raised above. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also as a suggestion I think you should propose fewer sources at a single time. These requests require research; ideally we should only add sources to our list after having looked at each of them carefully, as each RS addition is effectively an endorsement from us. In uncertainty, I think it's better to endorse fewer sources than more. seefooddiet (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of these sources raised, I'm going to add Korea Now as yellow (additional considerations apply). This matches the status of Yonhap News Agency, its parent news agency seefooddiet (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch

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

About Us is not very helpful, some blurbs about itself and highlight its exclusive reports. It does a lot of exclusive reports, however. Many of them are celebrity news, such as dating rumors, but they generally have been pretty accurate. The recent news about Jung Woo-sung having a son with Moon Ga-bi was first leaked by them, and this was confirmed true. [2]

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

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

I would file Dispatch under the same category as TMZ... (see WP:TMZ) Some consider it to be generally reliable, but better quality sources would be preferred if available.

Like TMZ, Dispatch publishes a lot of exclusive reports without naming their sources, however they seem to have a fairly steady track record of their exclusives turning out to be accurate, which suggests they do indeed have fact checking standards and some form of journalistic integrity and aren't just publishing fabricated nonsense.

My opinion is that Dispatch is a perfectly reliable source for non-extraordinary claims (general entertainment news), but any extraordinary claims (ie. most of their exclusives) should be explicitly attributed to Dispatch, if they're used at all. RachelTensions (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both your assessments. Comparison to TMZ is good I think. Think the no consensus rating would be appropriate, with comments explaining these caveats seefooddiet (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying that it probably wouldn't technically be a "no consensus rating" per sé; we (currently) seem to have consensus that the source is generally reliable in some circumstances but additional considerations apply.

Still a yellow rating regardless though. RachelTensions (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thanks seefooddiet (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the yellow rating. Needs other secondary reliable sources to confirm its claims. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding at yellow seefooddiet (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Munhwa Ilbo

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

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

Owned by Hyundai Group until 1997.
In 2007 criticized for publishing nude photos for which they were forced to apologize [3]
In 2017 they were implicated in the Samsung bribery scandal when it was revealed that the managing editor of Munhwa Ilbo asked Samsung's top lobbyist for financial favours in exchange for positive reporting. [4]

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

The website has an About Us which covers a brief history of itself. The publisher start as Hyundai Munhwa Ilbo in 1991 when it was owned by Hyundai, and changed its name to Munhwa Ilbo in 1999.

It is a member of Journalists Association of Korea, but I can't find any awards for the media except once in 2004. According to this and this article, Munhwa Ilbo got sanctioned and suspended from the press room for 1 full year, because of breaking embargo on North Korean spy. It's a bad sign.

I can't find famous exclusive reports from it or mainstream media citing the media. This, the lack of editorial team on its About Us, and several cases of felony over the years suggest this media is unreliable. I would not cite this most times. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red unreliable? Or yellow? Currently 277 uses on Wikipedia: [5]. If we did yellow we could add caveats instead of a blanket unreliable rating. I'm not sure what would be best. seefooddiet (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally leaning toward red. Its habitual violation of journalism standards outweighs its merits, which are few to begin with. From what I've seen, Munhwa Ilbo don't have much exclusive articles except editorials, with no real field reporting, so its exclusion won't be a huge loss. Its citations can be easily replaced with more reliable sources. Perhaps citations of uncontroversial, non-BLP articles can stay. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with yellow. Seems fine for general coverage, but other sources should be used for extraordinary claims. Given what seems to be a close relationship with Samsung I wouldn't trust them to be objective on any reporting in relation to Samsung or any of their competitors.

Munhwa Ilbo is cited fairly frequently by other sources that have been established as reliable, see: Washington Post, Variety, NME, The Korea Times, The Hankyoreh RachelTensions (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd prefer yellow as well. Flipping through uses of the source on Wikipedia, almost all uses are on topics that would be harmless. While we could probably replace much of these uses, it just seems like a lot of work for little gain, when most of the uses are probably fine. seefooddiet (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If others find values in Munhwa Ilbo I wouldn't strictly object it, but I still maintain it's on the lower end of the scale when it comes to reliability. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll add to yellow for now, but open to motions to demote it further to unreliable. seefooddiet (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting sources by caveats

Recently one or more IP users split entries for a couple of sources based on caveats. [6] E.g. There are now two entries for The Chosun Ilbo. Is this needed? I don't think WP:RS/P does this; I feel like this defeats the purpose of having caveats in the first place.

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

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

Ah you're right, thanks seefooddiet (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UGC and other unreliable sources

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

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

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

I agree with everything, except unsure about Naver Dict. We can either:

Treat it like a news aggregator situation, where it's not fundamentally reliable or unreliable. Then tell people to do {{Cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=[[Standard Korean Language Dictionary]] |via=[[Naver Dictionary]]...
Treat it as unreliable and make people convert to the underlying dictionary (probably the Standard Korean Language Dictionary in most cases).

Which is better? seefooddiet (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing Standard Korean Language Dictionary through Naver Dictionary might be necessary, as the former doesn't support individualized URL for words on official website. That should do if there's no other workaround. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll modify the news aggregator section to add this. May code something up in AWB that tags any uses of Naver Dictionary with a request to include |via=. Fortunately only 112 uses of Naver Dict, so not a crazy extensive problem. seefooddiet (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. We should also consider classifying dictionaries as well. For example, Urimalsaem is an interesting case. seefooddiet (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urimalsaem accepts user-generated contents. The official website is even run like a wiki, with history tab. The website technically marks which pages are authorized by experts and which are not, but I can't find how the editorial policy is done (for example, who these "experts" are; the editor name in history tabs is simply credited as NIKL without individual names). I'm not sure if Naver Dictionary actually distinguishes between UGC and official contents, either. I would say Urimalsaem is not acceptable as a source for now unless these issues can be resolved. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, many of the entries seem to be unsourced (e.g. unsourced definition vs sourced definition).

I think we should probably consider it unreliable, but still not sure. I think the information is probably accurate nearly 100% of the time and it doesn't neatly fit under UGC because basically everything on it that's user-facing has been reviewed by admins. Minimal harm whatever we do; it's only cited on Wikipedia like twice. seefooddiet (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna add these unreliable sources to the list seefooddiet (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emiya Mulzomdao Wait is newspic user generated? It seems to be more of a news aggregator. It lists the underlying source being referenced on each article. E.g. [7] is from 엑스포츠뉴스. Matches this [8].

If, by UGC, you were thinking of these pages, [9][10], I think these refer to having a recommendation algorithm based on user activity. The articles themselves are all actual articles I think.

I don't think we should classify this source yet; it's just a news aggregator to my understanding. seefooddiet (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UGC isn't quite accurate, since the articles are genuine, but Newspic is an impression-based user revenue website. The website's entire purpose is that users share their link on social media for some quick money. As far as I know, affiliate links like Newspic are considered spam on Wikipedia and generally prohibited. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to handle. Considering it's only used 8 times on Wikipedia may not be worth detailed thinking.

If we ignore the sharing aspect, the articles on the website are all genuine, functionally making the site a news aggregator.
However, considering the underlying sources receive money from this, maybe they'll tailor their coverage to cater to the algorithm to boost their own revenues. But this is just speculation, we'd need evidence of this.

If it's ok with you, I think we could abstain from classifying it at all, and just considering it a news aggregator. We could focus our time thinking about more impactful sources. seefooddiet (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar comment for Namu News; not straightforward imo, maybe just avoid classifying for now. 2 uses on Wikipedia seefooddiet (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Newspics is not frequently used to be worth listing. While at it, I'll replace them with less controversial sources since BLP articles don't allow contentious materials.

Namunews, on the other hand, I can attest it's 100% illegitimate since it's not registered at MCST's database, which is required by law for periodical literatures, including news aggregator. It is a bogus. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with putting namu as unreliable. Used so few times currently, so either way I think we're fine. seefooddiet (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly Chosun

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

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

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

It's had a number of scandals over the years. Other than the ones I wrote about in the Wikipedia article, there's this one in 2023 about them mistakenly alleging that a suicide note/will by a union leader was forged; they issued an apology and retracted the story [11].

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

Monthly Chosun is published by Chosun News Press, also behind almost all of Chosun's major print media that isn't The Chosun Ilbo. I think it's safe to assume what happens at Chosun News Press also concerns here.

Unfortunately, the web version doesn't have About Us or other information about its editorial policy, despite all the articles on it. To learn about this might just require having to read either physical or e-book copy (the latter is 6,500 Korean won here, so at least it isn't expensive). This will have to wait.

Monthly Chosun is home to a lot of journalists; former Newsis president Kim Hyun-ho was also a president of Monthly Chosun [12], and EBS vice president Kim Seongdong was also once a president here. Speaking of Cho Gab-je, he was also a president from 1990 to 2004.

Looking at the magazine articles themselves, I agree it is high quality for most topics. I think they're essentially extended articles from its daily reports.

Some other articles written about Monthly Chosun (some of them are from Media Today, famous for its criticism of Chosun media)

[13] - Media Today claiming that Monthly Chosun glamorized Daewoo Group in July 1996 issue
[14] - Media Today criticizing the magazine for publishing misleading articles about National Institute for Unification Education in July 1998 issue
[15] - Moon Joon Yong, son of Moon Jae-in, criticizing the magazine in 2020 for taking advantage of his private life
[16] - Democratic Party suing Chosun over its June 2024 article on Kim Jung-sook's overpriced airline food, which the party claims is not true

Personally, I think it's about as reliable as The Chosun Ilbo. The media is generally sound, but its coverage tends to become more erratic whenever Korean societal issues (for example, North Korea) are involved. Its exception claims about these matters should be treated carefully. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly adding stuff to list, feel free to hop in anyone else. seefooddiet (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CiteHighlighter

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

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

Do we know why Naver News always shows green? RachelTensions (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asked User talk:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter#Korea-related older sources still showing as green seefooddiet (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul Shinmun

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

The media's awards are plenty. It's a member of Journalists association of Korea, and won This Month's Journalists awards. ([17], [18]) It received the journalist award from Amnesty International several times. (2020, 2022, 2024) Also won Kwanhun Journalism award in 2018. [19]

Seoul Shinmun has been in turmoil since 2021, when Hoban Construction became the controlling shareholder. Namely, approximately 50 Seoul Shinmun articles that spotlighted Hoban's affairs from July to November 2019 were deleted from the online version in 2022 without notice. ([20] [21]) 20 of them were published in the first page of the print versions, so it is quite huge. I checked again, and the articles still did not return to the online version. There are reliable sources warning that Seoul Shinmun is in decline after the acquisition (SisaIN, Newstapa); Newstapa also claims Hoban tried to meddle with their reports on Hoban by abusing connections with Seoul Shinmun.

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

[22] an allegation that Seoul Shinmun has been using its prominence in the city to pressure local govts in Seoul to subscribe to the paper.
[23][24] Here's an ongoing dispute since 2022 between the mayor of Gangbuk District and Seoul Shinmun. The Gangbuk District govt alleged that Seoul Shinmun was published negative things about the mayor because he greatly decreased subscription volume to the newspaper. Gangbuk brought their subscriptions to 0 by 2024. The conflict is apparently pretty petty; the two parties verbally spar and Seoul Shinmun stopped reporting at all on Gangbuk District. [25] Here it retracted several articles about Gangbuk District that were found to be untrue.

I think I'd support a yellow classification for Seoul Shinmun. Mostly reliable, but use caution for its coverage of local Seoul governments, especially that of Gangbuk District beginning in 2022, and for articles related to Hoban Construction around the time of its acquisition. seefooddiet (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with yellow class. I would emphasize that these recent controversies came up after 2021, and before it there is no known significant issue. This paper was around over 100 years, so I think this is necessary to add. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the 100 year claim I don't really buy it. I wrote the articles for The Korea Daily News, Maeil sinbo, and Seoul Shinmun. I also wrote List of newspapers in Korea and History of newspapers in Korea.

Each transition, from the Korea Daily News to Maeil sinbo to Seoul Shinmun, resulted in a basically brand new newspaper. Basically complete staff turnovers.

For comparison, many major current South Korean newspapers were founded during the colonial era as Japanese or pro Japanese publications. Thus, the modern South Korean descendants try to distance themselves from that part of their history, and give their starting dates as like 1945/1946. They could embrace their descent in order to seem even older, but that would mean embracing ugly history. The only reason Seoul Shinmun embraces Maeil sinbo is because it gets to claim descent to an even older, prestigious newspaper: The Korea Daily News.

tl;dr I don't think the paper's claimed age is meaningful, purely a cynical decision for its own reputation. seefooddiet (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're to take its claim conservatively, its current incarnation was established around 1959-1961, which was when the paper dropped Maeil Sinbo brand and reset the issue number. I think this still makes its history quite long (about 60 years), longer than some mainstream media like The Hankyoreh. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

boldly modified entry, still open to discussion seefooddiet (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Naver News using AWB

Minor note. Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources/Archive 2#Naver News, I've been using AWB to tag Naver News uses as {{Full citation needed}}, but surprisingly only like 1/5th of the uses of Naver News I've seen need it. Think many articles are actually pretty decent at indicating what the underlying sources are, especially more recent articles. Pop culture articles tend to be the most rigorous about it.

I may remove the capability from AWB (explanation for why lengthy). From now on we could just manually tag Naver News sources. seefooddiet (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Dong-A Ilbo

This review was suggested by @Seefooddiet:

The Dong-A Ilbo is a daily newspaper founded in 1920, making it one of the oldest Korean print media still ongoing. This page details the history from the 1920s to the current decade. The newspaper has an English version.

Dong-A is a member of Journalists Association of Korea, like most other reliable news sources. It received "This month's journalist" awards from the organization several times. [26] [27] [28]
This page covers all the companies under the Dong-A media group, which is much bigger than The Dong-A Ilbo. They generally operate under different editorial teams and standards, and should be treated separately, which I'll talk about later.
Dong-A received Kwanhun Journalist awards twice for its report on field report on ambulances in 2023 and loan shark scandal in 2024.
Media Today published an article in 2021 that Dong-A's interview about minimum wage was largely fictitious and misleading. This was later resolved with Dong-A greeing to pay the interviewee 2 million Korean won.

For The Dong-A Ilbo, I think it's fair to keep the current "generally reliable" class. The media has a decenet coverage and great exclusive reports. I tried digging up its dirt and I didn't find major proofs that Dong-A's editorials are highly unreliable. The 2021 controversy about minimum wage interview is relatively minor. I heard words that Dong-A is biased toward right-wing ([29]), but being opinionated doesn't necessarily mean it's unreliable (see WP:BIASEDSOURCES).

This opinion only concerns The Dong-A Ilbo, whose URL starts with https://www.donga.com/. The other media should be judged separately.

Donga media

I'm not familiar with everything under Dong-A, so I marked italic for media I'm not certain about.

Shindonga: Monthly magazine. This is published by The Dong-A Ilbo directly and shares the same editorials if I read right, so I think it's as reliable as the newspaper.
Weekly Donga
Woman Donga: Also monthly magazine. Its HQ address is the same as Dong-A Ilbo, but not sure about its relation.
Game Donga: I've discussed this somewhere, but this website is unreliable. This is not directly established under Donga, but credited to an obscure company GameGru. Its staff is filled with amateurs with no real prior journalist experience (with blurbs that they're gaming fans or something similiar), and it frequently publishes flamebait articles sourced from arbitrary forum posts, such as this one in December 2024 that lifted Reddit comments complaining "Rockstar Games is tainted by political correctness". Their articles often omit any direct links, so you also can't fact check if these are real. I recommend to just avoid it.
Channel A: Dong-A's television channel.
Sports Donga: Sports coverage.
Donga Science: Scientific topic. Has won several awards.

Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be comfortable painting all the sub-Dongas (only the ones verified to be directly under Dong-a Media Group) with the same brush as the parent publication unless there is evidence that they do not adhere to the same editorial oversight. That'd be pretty much all of the ones under the "Donga.com" subdomain, which basically act as different sections of the newspaper.

https://sports.donga.com, https://weekly.donga.com, https://shindonga.donga.com, https://woman.donga.com

Notable exception is Game Donga, which, while under the Donga.com domain, seems to be its own entity operated by "IT Dong-A Co., Ltd" in collaboration with Game Gru, whatever that is.

Also note that Donga Science is independent from Dong-a Group since 2000, so it'd definitely require a full separate evaluation. RachelTensions (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ok with this too. seefooddiet (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donga Science didn't split from the group, just became a separate legal entity. The magazine is still listed as one of Donga's affliates here on Dong-A Ilbo's page. Game Donga appears to be separate from IT Donga, since their staff list has a different editor-in-chief for each. Game Donga instead seems to be mostly operated by GameGru, which I can't strangely find any information of, and has much lower editorial standards than usual as I already mentioned. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote most of The Dong-A Ilbo. See The Dong-A Ilbo#Post-war period; I'd argue the newspaper's coverage of the South Korean govt in the 1970s should be treated with skepticism, due to its conflict with the government, huge shake up, then sympathetic leaning to the govt.
[30] A Newstapa report alleges that The Dong-A Ilbo took orders from Samsung in the late 2010s on how to report on various Samsung-related affairs. The Dong-A Ilbo denied this allegation.

Other than that I don't see a lot of other major allegations. I'd be ok with leaving it at reliable, but I'd prefer we write brief notices about some of its issues. seefooddiet (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related—we rate The Chosun Ilbo yellow because of its right-wing leaning, but The Dong-A Ilbo seems to get a pass for its leaning. Otherwise its only issue is North Korea coverage, but honestly most newspapers in the world have accuracy issues with North Korea. Should we really keep The Chosun Ilbo as yellow? seefooddiet (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think coverage of North Korea by South Korean sources in general should be taken with a large dose of skepticism... if we're downgrading one source over it then we'd have to downgrade them all. RachelTensions (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May be worth opening a reexamination of The Chosun Ilbo. The last discussion about it specifically was pretty high level. seefooddiet (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Chosun, There need to be a review of machine-translated on the website. Case in point here (chosun.com), the article title appear to be wrong (maybe not just the title) compared to the original article in Korean. I hope you understand as I don't speak English 125.246.246.153 (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like ChosunBiz does machine translation. Looking around The Chosun Ilbo's English website I can't find any articles that use machine translation.

@Emiya Mulzomdao let's try to go for a more thorough examination of The Chosun Ilbo soon. I'm traveling for a while so may not be able to get to it, but if you start a post I may add to it. seefooddiet (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]