Talk:The Korea Times

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)

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)

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)