Talk:The Chosun Ilbo

Korean empire?

Chosun Ilbo can't have reported critically on the pro-Japanese Korean king during the Korean Empire, as the Korean Empire ended in 1910 and the Chosun Ilbo was founded in 1920. Maybe the original writer was referring to the Korean family that still existed in some subordinate form during Japanese rule. I edited out the reference ot the Korean Empire near the beginning of the history section, but it could be put back in with some clarification if somebody knows exactly what the old text was referring to. --Reuben 18:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Definite article?

Choice of style: Chosun Ilbo or The Chosun Ilbo? I could go either way. You would translate it as The Chosun (or Korean) Daily News, with a definite article, but that doesn't necessarily settle it. If anybody knows what style is used when it's cited by English-language newspapers, that would probably be the best guide to follow. --Reuben 20:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The Chosun Ilbo folk use the definite article on their English-version site, FWIW. 202.89.139.117 09:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Shandong?

Anybody know anything about Japan sending troops to Shandong around May of 1927? This is in the current text, but Japan didn't invade China proper until 1937. Was this some other incident? Or perhaps the date is wrong? --Reuben 20:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You are definitely wrong. See Jinan Incident, please.--刻意(Kèyì) 14:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was The Chosun Ilbo → Chosun Ilbo — removal of the definite article 70.232.175.153 05:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support. Since neither Chosun nor Ilbo are English, the definite article is a real mystery. —  AjaxSmack  20:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose, as noted above the English-language website[1] uses the definite article as part of it's title, and so should we. PC78 00:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• I leaned towards supporting this suggestion at first, but now I'm not sure. They call themselves The Chosun Ilbo on their English-language site, as noted in an old topic above. We have The New York Times and other articles like it at the full title despite the definite article. Is there a reason to think that this isn't an integral part of the English title? Dekimasuよ! 07:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 09:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

political allegiance

The Chosun Ilbo being considered more of a right-wing paper - what's its counter-part? Dong-a Ilbo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.78.36 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hankyoreh is probably the closest answer, although it doesn't bear nearly as much influence on the society as the top three newspapers—Chosun, Joong-Ang and Dong-A, all of which happen to be on the right side of the spectrum (they are often colloquially grouped as 조중동 Cho-Joong-Dong for that reason).  It is widely accepted that Chosun's stance leans much more to the right, even when compared to the other two; I can't think of any major far-left newspaper to balance that though. —blue-kun (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

In order to tidy up the English grammar, I might have changed the context slightly.

Chosun Ilbo has been undertaken annual inspections since Audit Bureau of Circulations was established in 1993.

was changed to

Chosun Ilbo has been undertaking annual inspections since the Audit Bureau of Circulations was established in 1993.

at (UTC) 17:08pm, 20/02/08. I assume this is what the first sentence (grammatically incorrect in English) means though if someone disagrees that this is what the original author meant please feel free to alter it further. Lstanley1979 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

POV problems

I reverted this page because:

1. It had been rewritten as POV propaganda by a local activist with poor command of the English language.

2. The propaganda lacks adequate sources.

I am quite aware that the Chosun Ilbo is a very controversial institution among leftists and "pro-unification" activists in Korean society, and I am reading up on the issue. I will try to get to it in due time with adequate sources in English.Jayzames (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

More POV pushing

Again, removed clumsy, bad English POV pushing, i.e. " Also partly owing to far conservative style of writing, distorted perspective and fabrications, Chosun Ilbo is named as the mass media with the lowest credibility among Korean newspapers and TV stations" The source cited is:

1. In Korean, and not English, and this is English Wikipedia. It also doesn't say who did the survey, or who the respondents were. The closest I can figure out is that it was performed by Sisain itself or the Journalists Association of Korea (reference here) . I don't think Sisain is likely to be a reliable source about a competing organization, and the Journalists Association of Korea appears to be a highly polemical lobby as well, as should be apparent from the caricatures on its homepage even to non-Korean speakers.

2. A survey performed by the BBC, Reuters and Globescan, all reputable sources, indicates that the Chosun Ilbo is actually the most trusted among Korean newspapers ( BBC here, Globescan here).

3. The Chosun Ilbo is manifestly not an "extreme right" newspaper, if far right is to denote Nazism or Fascism. It is a conservative newspaper (by Korean standards).

Please edit this article in good faith (성의)and use a neutral point of view (중립적인 시각).

I will be adding some English language cited material to the "Criticism" section myself (here) Jayzames (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why Hanja

Why does the infobox show a Hanja logo?

I don't see it on the newspaper's website, and in the printed version the name is written in Hangul. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Chosun Ilbo ultraconservative and far-right?

I read the WP:DR, and it says we need to have some discussion here. As I have stated in my edit summaries, my edit is based on high-quality reliable sources. Chosun Ilbo is accurately defined as a conservative newspaper. This is not original research. And also using common sense, it would be ridiculous to go around in South Korea telling people that Chosun Ilbo is a 극우매체 or 급진우파. Res Iudicata (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Firstly I want to thank for your input. Also I really appreciate your behavior to keep WP:DR. I want to keep WP:AGF on your edit however you have removed the well sourced items due to original research (which is your own opinion). You should really keep these behavior from WP. I'll try to get other users to join this discussion. But as you know this article is seriously lack of other editor's interest and reliable sources. So I think it might take a quite long time to make progress on discussion. Please keep patient and wait until other users join the talk. Thank you for reading.

I have pinged other users to join this discussion. If you want to invite other editors for more fair discussion please feel free to do it.

​​​ Jeff6045 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I said my edit is based on high-quality reliable sources, and also that describing the Chosun Ilbo as ultra-conservative or far-right is a bias that needs to be rectified. You keep accusing me of doing original research, but I have cited several high-quality reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed journals that describe the Chosun Ilbo as conservative. You have not explained why my edit is original research and only disparage my behavior. You are also ignoring dispute resolution steps of notifying the appropriate dispute resolution boards and asking for an opinion from neutral editors, not the editors that you know or share a similar political inclination as yourself. Res Iudicata (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

These reliable sources describe Chosun Ilbo as conservative.

• Press Freedom in Contemporary Asia - This change permitted leading conservative newspapers: Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo and Dong-a Ilbo - to open broadcasting channels...
• How partisan newspapers represented a pandemic: the case of the Middle East respiratory syndrome in South Korea: In contrast, Chosun Ilbo, the right-wing newspaper, placed more...
• News media’s framing of health policy and its implications for government communication: A text mining analysis of news coverage on a policy to expand health insurance coverage in South Korea - Chosun-ilbo, a conservative newspaper, tended to cover the financial feasibility of Mooncare.
• "Ideological parallelism: toward a transnational understanding of the protest paradigm: In contrast, the conservative press in the US (Wall Street Journal) was closer in its coverage to Korea’s conservative publication (Chosun Ilbo), which was defensive of Park and her supporters.

These are high-quality reliable sources, including three peer-reviewed journals that are highly relevant to political inclinations of Chosun Ilbo. Res Iudicata (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do not change contents without any further discussion on the talk page. The issue needs to be discussed by multiple user not just by two of us. Jeff6045 (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, even though your sources might be reliable, don't you think it's a problem to delete well sourced items (such as sources of ultra conservative) due to your own view? Additionaly, I agree to add "conservative" on paper's political alignment. Jeff6045 (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Accusing Chosun Ilbo, a mainstream newspaper in South Korea, of being ultra-conservative/far-right is an exceptional claim that requires high quality sources, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. And even without this exceptional standard, what you describe as well-sourced items are poor sources. There are five cited sources that describe the Chosun Ilbo as ultra-conservative/far right. Two of them are opinionated statements by individual journalists in newspaper articles.[2][3]. As for the books, they are WP:CHERRYPICKED sources. The absolute majority of available scholarly sources use the description conservative or right-wing, not ultra-conservative or far-right. The ultra-conservative description is used by three books according to a search in google books, and no peer-reviewed journal articles use that description according to a search in google scholar. The far-right or far right description cannot be found in google books or google scholar. In the academic community, the description of the Chosun Ilbo as ultra-conservative or far-right is rare(i.e. if you can find any) to non-existent. And sources from the academic community that describe the Chosun Ilbo as conservative are aplenty, with fewer sources using the description right-wing. Authoritative sources from Freedom House describe the Chosun Ilbo as conservative as well.[4][5] Multiple documents from Reporters without Borders also describe the Chosun Ilbo as conservative[6][7][8] or right-wing.[9] To continue on the currently cited sources, there are three book sources. One of them, the book about the concept of Minjung[10], is clearly a book authored by a group of left-wing scholars, making it a biased source, thus infringing WP:NPOV. The one about transnational cooperation in Northeast Asia was also written by an anti-war left-wing scholar, thus also infringing WP:NPOV. I am not inferring that the value of their work is of low quality. Their work on the subject of Minjung and transnational cooperation in NEA are valuable contributions to knowledge. But my point is that they were written by political/ideological opponents of the Chosun Ilbo, thus making their comments on the Chosun Ilbo biased. Such biased sources, especially those that do not directly analyze the subject in dispute, i.e. the political inclination of the Chosun Ilbo, cannot be used to define the Chosun Ilbo with fringe definitions. The other book on use of English in Korea[11] primarily describes Chosun Ilbo as conservative and only describes Chosun Ilbo as ultra-conservative once. And the context of the ultra-conservative description is Chosun Ilbo's pro-congolmerate stance, not far-right politics. To sum it up, all the sources that you claim are good fail WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:VER, three of the most fundamental policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. The absolute majority of what you can define as good sources define the Chosun Ilbo as conservative or right-wing, and that's how it should be defined in Wikipedia. Res Iudicata (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment . I found that there are reliable sources for both of the descriptions you are pushing and I am mainly talking about books. If I am to choose, however, I would favor the less incendiary label and/or cite both in the body. I am also noting here that the term "ultra conservative" has not been defined in the Wikipedia platform. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your inupt, as well as further improvements to the article. They are much appreciated. You are saying there are reliable sources for both of the descriptions me or Jeff6045 is pushing. Can you please be more specific about these descriptions? Res Iudicata (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The descriptions I am talking about are "conservative and "ultra-conservative". Both of these labels are used in reliable sources. For instance, the latter is used by these texts: . The term "conservative", on the other hand, is used by these sources: . Darwin Naz (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that out. I have noted earlier that high quality reliable sources that use the more incendiary terms are authored by left-wing intellectuals, who are political/ideological opponents of the Chosun Ilbo, thus making NPOV concerns relevant. And I agree with you that the less incendiary label should be used. For example, there are many high quality reliable sources that describe The Hankyoreh as radical and left-wing. Even the first cited source for Hangyureh's political inclination, The Korea Year Book by Frank & Hoare, describes it as radical in page 50. Many high quality reliable sources also describe it as a left-wing newspaper. It seems many left-wing entities in South Korea took a unique shift to the right in Wikipedia, examples being The Hankyoreh and the Justice Party (South Korea). Res Iudicata (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You have a point. The challenge is that this would require an editor to make decisions as to who are these left-wing authors or ideological opponents in his use of sources and would probably lead to another debate. In addition to the reasons I stated in my previous posts, I would also like to note that ultraconservatism is a type of conservatism so the term conservative is still applicable if some editors insist on the ultraconservative label. Also, I have read a text, which I can't seem to find anymore, that identified a specific period in recent time when Chosun Ilbo took a more extreme conservative position. This indicates to me that the ultraconservative label is perhaps a recent development or that there are only specific incidents where it adopted positions that are considered extreme. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

References

"The Chosun Ilbo" or "Chosun Ilbo"?

We still aren't consistent on this, 13 years after the move request above. The page title has the "the", but the article text italicization does not. Which are we going with? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

North Korean execution report under "Controversy"

"Chosun Ilbo reported a guy dead, then he turned out to be alive." is not a controversy, even if factual. That said, if Chosun Ilbo has received significant and verifiable public criticism over its record of false North Korean execution reports, that might be a controversy worth mentioning. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Note to User:Sirdog9002: I did not "blank" the controversy section. I replaced text that did not describe a controversy with text that did. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Oldest?

Is this really the "oldest" newspaper, having been founded in 1920? How do we define "oldest"? It's complicated even further given the newspaper's hiatuses for years at a time.

Seoul Shinmun descends from the 1904 The Korea Daily News, although it was succeeded by Maeil Sinbo in 1910. Furthermore, Gyeongnam Ilbo was founded in 1909, although it went on hiatus until 1946.

I think we need a more precise term other than "oldest"; "longest-running"? toobigtokale (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm.. "longest-running under the same name" would be even more precise, given The Korea Daily News/Maeil Sinbo/Seoul Shinmun's history of mostly uninterrupted publication. toobigtokale (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Why not just broaden the term and say "one of the oldest" or "one of the longest-running"? MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 08:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That's probably the best compromise seefooddiet (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Official name

Their official English name appears to be "The Chosun Daily" instead of "The Chosun Ilbo". I'm not sure when this happened. Either way, I'm pretty sure WP:COMMONNAME means that we should keep the article title as "The Chosun Ilbo" for time being. seefooddiet (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)