Talk:Kyung Lah

Impartiality
I'm no fan of Kyung Lah, and some of her journalism is not only sloppy but outright fallacious. That said, I don't believe this statement belongs in an encyclopedia: I have removed the bolded portion for now, but it would be nice to add a separate section relating to the controversy of her reports. -- Masamunecyrus(talk)(contribs) 14:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Kyung I. Lah (born August 27, 1971) is a Tokyo-based international correspondent for CNN who is prominent for her sloppy journalism.

Affair section
I have removed, per the biographies of living persons policy, a paragraph concerning the circumstances surrounding the subject's firing from a television at which she worked. I am concerned that the information here, which is sourced to the LA Observed blog, is not a reliable source. As can be seen from the warning template at the top of this page, controversial information such as this must be reliably sourced, and blogs, as a general rule do not qualify. I do see that LA Business Journal picked up the story, and I agree that LA Business Journal is generally a reliable source. However, as the story shows, the LABJ is not vouching for the accuracy of the story itself, instead, it carefully states that the blog reported the story. Even if the get the story reliably sourced, a full paragraph blow-by-blow, complete with the names of collaterally invovled, and otherwise unnotable people, is entirely inappropriate, and violates WP:UNDUE. I see that another editor has listed this on the biographies of living persons noticeboard, and I will be interested in seeing what others have to say. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Xymmax, point taken. However, there are several flaws in your argument that I will address. First, review the "Self-published sources (online and paper)" section at Wikipedia:Verifiability. It states that

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[6]

Blogs obviously fall within the criteria. However, it states right after:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

LA Observed is run by Kevin Roderick, who "spent two decades as a staff writer, line editor and senior editor at the Los Angeles Times, specializing in in-depth projects and coverage of politics, urban affairs and the state of California." He also "shared in two Pulitzer Prizes awarded for staff coverage of the Rodney King riots and the Northridge earthquake." You can read more of his credentials at the biography section of LA Observed. His blog has also been cited as being "widely read by journalists, media professionals, bloggers and politicians and is regularly cited in the national media," and "has been named a Best of the Web media blog by Forbes." (http://www.kcrw.com/people/roderick_kevin?role=host)(http://www.forbes.com/bow/b2c/category.jhtml?id=306)

I'm sure this meets wikipedia's reliability requirements. His articles have also been cited in several other wikipedia articles (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=+site:en.wikipedia.org+LA+observed+and+wikipedia&ei=q4_kSqDKK5iQkQWG5dGxAQ&sa=X&oi=nshc&resnum=1&ct=more-results&ved=0CA0Q2AQ&fp=8ec9ea851cee2c5b).

Now please stop section deleting the KNBC section. If you have problems with it through WP:UNDUE, please streamline the section instead of deleting it.

--123.224.179.215 (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've missed the last few days. It appears that there largely is consensus about what should be done, but to quickly offer my two cents, I'm still reluctant to accept LA Observed as a BLP reliable source. It probably could considered a reliable source for many things, but in its "about" section it acknolwedges that it will occasionally print gossip and tips the editor receives. Since the editor is an experienced newspaper reporter, I would expect that there is fact checking there, but it isn't clear to me that this was done in the article about the incident. Rather, it merely credits the "scoop" to Ron Finemans's blog. If you feel strongly about it, you may want to list it over at the reliable sources noticeboard for an opinion. Even if it is reliable, I don't think we could add much more about this to the article in it's current "stub" size without running afoul of WP:UNDUE.Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A fairly lengthy discussion ocurred at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, this link shows the discussion as of the time of this post. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Rpeated BLP vandalism
Look,, fist of all, the three links are not reliable sources given the no-notability of the sites regardless of whether they say truth or not. Even two of the three links that you used are "non-existent" which means either you have tried to insert "BOGUS" sources from bad faith, or the links that are not even "reliable sources" are deleted by the original website manager. The rest one link does not even show the content that you alleged for "sex scandal", and beside, it is an opinion from a reader. You fail to abide by WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:NEWS, so please stop vandalising Wikipedia.--Caspian blue 11:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This material does look like a BLP protection issue, please do not reinsert it, if you want to reinsert it please first ask at the BLP noticeboard thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That he failed to mention sources other than personal or "hollywood gossip-ish" sites does not mean there aren't any reliable sources. The Maynard Institute for one certainly seems to have considered this issue newsworthy, not only in relation to Kyung Lah's career, but also on the impact it had on KNBC itself. In other words, while this is unfortunately damaging for the public figure in question, this is salient information. 49.144.230.116 (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider the IP's edits to be vandalism. I do think that they were not in keeping with some of our policies, but vandals do not ask you to discuss issues on the talk page and then participate constructively. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just presented my case about the source's reliability at the BLP noticeboard.--123.224.179.215 (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Kyung Lah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dynamic-korea.com/opinion/view.php?main=ITV&sub=&uid=200600025139&keyword=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

New documentary
There's a new documentary film about Kyung Lah, entitled On the Trail. It's airing on CNN right now. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)