Talk:The Korea Times

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Korea Times article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean popular culture working group.

Newspapers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Editorials

In recent years there have been a series editorials of anti-foreigner/anti-English speaker articles written by Kang Shin-who. These articles do not necessarily represent the views of the newspaper as a whole, but the fact that the newspaper endorses--and in some cases, encourages with awards--is rather disturbing and casts doubt as to its objectivity.

Although blogs are hardly Reliable Sources, the sheer number of both postsand readers' reactions to these articles makes this phenomenon noteworthy. 203.249.73.204 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weaselly "Controversy" section

Most of the incidents reported here have no information about the controversies cited. There should at minimum be a one-sentence summation of exactly what was controversial about the cited material; failing that, no information has been communicated and the text is just taking up space. And at least one such instance doesn't even include dates.

May I suggest the Bernard Wideman entry - which does cover the territory - be taken as a model to upgrade the other paragraphs in the section? Laodah 21:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem too necessary. Should we publish the content of the Holocaust denier's argument (she said the gas chambers disguised as showers were actually showers, among many other claims)? As for the subway article, the point wasn't so much the content of it (typical foreigner whining about Korea), but that the persona of the contributor was revealed as totally fraudulent. There is very little published analysis of the content of that article anyway, so it seems difficult to expand on without a Wikipedia editor editorialising. Daehanmindecline (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of the section either. It reports mixed quality information and goes into TMI in some incidents, giving it an NPOV feeling. 211.36.142.234 (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]