Talk:Korea University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please help us improve this article.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

For previous discussions (before September) please click this link: /Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Neutral?

The 'Leading Internationalisation' and 'Global KY Project' read like press releases from the University. I do not believe they can be considered to conform to NPOV.

For the record, the above comment was made by one person. Below that comment were some comments about vandalism from the Korea University campus. --Kjoonlee 20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How could you so sure that it was commited by the person from Korea Univ?

Actually, someone maliciously has changed and deleted the contents and pictures for Korea University, as well as adding controversial data which was posted to harm Korea University. I assume that it was done by persons from either of Yonsei or Hanyang university.
is not t
And the above (now clipped) comment was made by Patriotmissile, and below that was proof that the edits came from the KU campus. --Kjoonlee 20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

1) I agree the article is not NPOV. 2) Who cares whether it was from a KU person or not? It's irrelevant. 3) Could everyone please sign their statements by using the tilde marks? Epthorn 08:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Epthorn, if you have somethings you wish to be revised, provide evidences with appropriate references, not your own opinion. In addition, I added the reference supporting the leading status on globalization of Korea University in South Korea.Patriotmissile 18:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the two editors on here have failed to come to agreement, I am re-adding the POV tag. Please do not delete it until there are more editors examining the point of view- the point of the tag is to express a disagreement, and it does not mean the article IS biased, it only means that it might be. Epthorn 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok as you wish~~. You better prepare good evidences on your claims, Epthorn.Patriotmissile 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV/Neutrality redux

I see that there has been some question of the POV/neutrality of this article before. I also see that either nothing has been done or it has been broken again.

The entire article- but particularly the introduction -is clearly biased. It is written as if it were an advertisement. This is a very poor wikipedia article, except for one part on 'academics' which is sourced. Look at a few sentences:

"Korea University has nurtured the essential manpower to various aspects of the Korean society from academic field to entertainment business." -This looks as if it is written by an ad executive. No facts.

"Furthermore, unlike Seoul National University, the private universities are proud of and renowned for their spirit, traditions, and the gold balance of academics and athletics." -Are you kidding me? This does not belong in a wiki article unless you somehow prove through a neutral source that it is true. Removing reference to SNU immediately.

If someone would like to source the statements in the introduction in particular, that would be helpful. Otherwise I will go through it in about a week to improve the quality myself, hopefully through finding references but also by eliminating language that is so obviously POV. In the meantime I welcome a look at this by others. Note the only change I have made so far is by removing what looks to be a derogatory reference to Seoul National, unless of course someone can prove it.

Epthorn 06:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As you wish, I just added references supporting the lines you claimed to be as 'no facts'. Who do you think you are? Some kind of God? You can't remove contents with your own opinion and standard. What made you think people would consider your revision is based on sole and concrete truths nothing but truths?

By the way Epthorn, you really look alike someone I just met in Wikipedia, Brincos who is from Sungkyunkwan University. May I ask you if you are not the same person? Cause I'd like to ask the Wikipedia administrator to investigate it.Patriotmissile 17:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In addtion, what do you think about this following article regarding Sungkyunkwan University. I think it is definitely people worth to know; [9]. Do you agree, Epthorn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotmissile (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe my comment was both civil and valid. Yours, however, seems to have been much less so. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CIVIL for an explanation. If you have some sort of edit to contribute to another wiki page (your parting remark vis a vis Sungkyunkwan) I'd invite you to make comments there, as they clearly have no relevance to this page. Epthorn 20:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

::Okay, here is what I'm going to do. One person here seems to have had experience (or claims to) with vandalism to the KU page. I would not necessarily doubt it. This is not my intention, however. I see the KU page as written like an advert, in violation of wikipedia rules and common sense regarding articles. There are some good sections, but the introduction does not look up to snuff. Therefore I will work on it and probably change it. Those statements that are important to the article and are backed up I will leave in substantively. When I make an edit I will leave information on the talk pages of those involved for comment. Should things continue to go downhill from there we can informally request 3rd party views, especially those of admins who will not be called 'puppets'. Until then I'm not going to continue to try and work on this talk page since from the beginning I found no help other than accusations of vandalism here. See you all in a few days. Epthorn 08:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no offense on your idea. however, please remember that your future revions also can be assessed by any others, and sequential revisions can surely be made. Like you have a right to do revisions, others have so. In addition, as you said, your standard of judgement will also be needed to be verified by the 3rd parties, including administrators. I do believe you agree with my statements.Patriotmissile 01:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

I have looked over the article, in particular the lead section, and at the history of edits. The two editors at the centre of the disagreement, Epthorn and Patriotmissile, are both concerned to make the article as good as possible and to protect it from inappropriate edits, and both are to be commended for that. Patriotmissile especially has worked hard for a while to improve the article. However, I share Epthorn's concerns for the use of language in the lead section which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia as the tone is not neutral: there is a distinct bias toward praise. I would support efforts to clean up the lead section, and then a general clean up of the rest of the article which is a little scruffy and cluttered in places. I would also suggest using only a few sources to back up a single point. Select one or two of the most reliable and authoritative and leave it at that. Regards. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and concern, SilkTork *SilkyTalk. I concur with your suggestions and I hope the regular editors of this article will also.Grunty Thraveswain 12:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your valuable suggestion, SilkTork. One thing I am concerning is that there are users who continuously call in questions and insufficiency on references, so it is prety hard to choose only one reference. In fact, most references here act synergistically to underpin the contents for which the refernces support. I will keep trying to contribute this thread to make it better in accordance to rules of Wikipedia.Patriotmissile 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is the references per se, but rather the presentation of the information. If you look at other top tier schools like Harvard University, they don't spend very much time elaborating how "prestigious" the school is or how many of their graduates are "leaders in the field." Instead, it lists specific leaders and their positions and lets the facts speak for themselves. It fits the old adage "show, don't tell," and I think that would be a great guideline here. People can always argue with broad generalizations, even if it has a citation next to it. No one can argue with specific facts. Konamaiki 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
To give an idea of what is problematic and what is acceptable. I have removed from the lead section the most troublesome sentences, which I will reproduce here. What is left is neutral, and gives the leading facts without weighted opinion. There is however, a claim of being "first" - such claims ALWAYS need to be backed up by sources. I have tagged that sentence. If it is not sourced within seven days then it should be removed. I am not in favour of gallery sections, but I have created one in order to deal with the excessive amount of images within the article. It would be better for the editors to select one or two telling images and remove the gallery completely. I have trimmed the references for the university being "one of the most prestigious universities" to one single authoritative statement from the Asia Times Online. Foreign language sources are acceptable on the English language Wiki when there are no English language versions available - however, there is a reliable English language source available, so I have used that. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic sentences from lead section

Korea University has striven to recast its old somewhat conservative image to global and future-oriented figures, and efforts for the recast have been fruited successfully so far [1], [2]. As part of the efforts, the educational exchange program in KU has been successfully concluded with plentiful foreign universities listed in the reference through out the world for better encounter with global experiences[3].

In addition to its well-acknowledged academic reputation, the university is also esteemed for its history, strong traditions, and contributions to the nation. Through out turbulent modern history in the Republic of Korea, students of Korea University have dedicated their abilities in diverse areas for reforming this society. In general, the students of Korea University are well known for their rigid attachment and strong unity, as well as for their easy and loyal incorporation into the societies to which they belong [4],[5],[6].

Along the modern Korean history, Korea University has been one of the craddles of manpower in Korean society [7]. Korea University has nurtured the essential manpower to various aspects of the Korean society from academic field to entertainment business. A significant portion of prominent figures in Korea, including politicians, jurists, scholars, scientists, entrepreneurs, and sports celebrities, has been educated and produced from Korea University. In Korean society, Korea University has been indeed one of the major groups influencing the society for its progress [8].


These sentences need dealing with before returning them to the article. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


SilkTork, Thank you for your efforts. You are right that my concern was mainly with the tone- Korea University's article doesn't 'need' to mention continually how prestigious it is, since its references speak for themselves. Your edits have really put what I think is an appropriate tone for a university article in here, and so I think it would be a good time to remove the POV-check tag as P.M. suggested. Epthorn 21:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the user who raised the question and tagged a POV-check tag here agreed to remove the tag, so I am removing it. Let me know if there's any objections or oipnions.Patriotmissile 02:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly I may agree, but Epthorn, if you wanna urge the prejudiced inbred references used to be used the KU thread, please refer detailed information and numbers of them. As I remember, only a few references were from KU itself, and moreover they were used only to support definite facts, such as year of foundation or names of well-known alumni. In exceptional cases, other references from outter sources were used together. And will you do the same efforts you have put in the KU thread to other Korean univbersities? If you don't, I'd like to start it by myself in accordance to the standard put in the KU thread.Patriotmissile 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Series of defaming done by Sungkyunkwan University 'hooligans'

I have noticed that several SKKU alumni and students continuously commit so-called 'hooliganing' on the Korea University thread. I found SKKU people (from Mumun and Brincos to plausibly Epthorn) have done multiple unnecessary revisions on the KU thread, and they attacked me under the cloak of their claims, freedom of uploading truths. Contradictionary, whenever I upload 'facts' with references on SKKU thread, they always erase them rightaway without any remarks. I never believe the claims SKKU people have made, which are reffering to their undiscriminable love toward the facts based on truths with coresponding references. After I found SKKU people started posting 'facts' on the KU thread, I have posted sole facts with refences on the SKKU thread for examples as follow (falsification of SCI journal numbers by SKKU [10], inll reputation of SKKU defaming on other Korean universities [11], and percentage of regular job employment in SKKU university [12], but everytime I uploaded, they removed them without exception. SKKU people, will you still say you guys love and accept any truths, though they are harsh?Patriotmissile 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, You remember I've just put the location of Jochiwon campus in the article. What's the problem? Do you really think if it is something for attack? Wow... Brincos 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey?? I think that's not an appropriate word to be applied to another person you don't even know. Clearly, I am not your friend. In addtion, your example is not pertaining to my claim. Not only you, [user:Mumun] also did mutiple revisions on the KU thread, which seems not to be ncessary.
Also, do you remember that when you revised the above example you made, you tried to bargain with me for not uploading the fact with references I know about Sungkyunkwan university. Please look back what you have done before you continuously make accusations on me.Patriotmissile 00:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, do you still believe what you tried to revise was appropriate? It is clear that Jochiwon is a official name for Korea University's official name, and it is stated clearly in main introduction section. Also, in most university threads in Wikipedia, the location of campus in the infobox is introduced as for the main campus. Please look around if I am lying or not. However, you continuously changed it in accordance to the style on Sungkyunkwan university for uncertain reasons.Patriotmissile 00:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What a nit-picking! Go to [13] see the discuss between you and me at the time of 20:39 ~ 20:44, 22 October 2007. I told you "Hey" and then you replied "Haha". AND please see what you've left at 14:45, 14 September 2007 (RIGHT BELOW) in the "Patriotmissile make the threat against someone". CAN YOU READ THAT? You started your comment with "Haha hey you Brincos ...". What an inconsistent attitude of yours!! Brincos 02:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You still have the same attitude you used to show. You always try to keep away from core questions and make itsy-bitsy issues to cover up the core problems you have. In addition, I haven't mentioned that you and your colleague, Mumun, only have addicted to make unnecessary revisions solely in the Korea University thread, just like here is the primary target you guys planned to overcome. Anyway, let's see what administrators joudge this case. Oh by the way, I am sorry that I called you with the word 'hey', and I won't call you that way anymore, so please don't call me that way, either.Patriotmissile 14:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patriotmissile make the threat against someone

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

Someone trying to remove contents from this thread by the user accssing with seemingly proxy server. I think who he is, but I won't reveal it right now. Whoever you are, you'd better be careful.Patriotmissile 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha hey you Brincos, notoriuos SKKU hooligan and also vicious hacker, you are one real fly. I just warned the guy to be careful on his acts for not to lose his identity in Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what you called it. Anyway it seems like it was you who did it. Anybody can tell who Brincos is from talk:sky (schools), his and my talk boxes, and his contributions.Patriotmissile 14:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing continuous vandalism on the Korea University thread

Recently, the guy who is an IP-logged-in user, who uses '68.49.2.142' as his IP (NOT SURE IF IT A PROXY OR TRUE IP), has continuously changed the right word to wrong one, Bosung-> Poseong(?). This reminds me of someone who likes to use a similar typography (e.g., Yoenggi), Brincos the Sungkyunkwan university alumni.

By the way, in these days, some people, inculding the user 'Epthorn' continuously raise questions on contents in the KU thread, and threaten me to delete or change contents massively. I'd like to tell all those users something. At least, the contents in the KU thread are underpinned by the corresponding references quoted from major broadcasts and newspapers. If you guys wish to raise questions and revise contents in the KU thread, you guys are better to have reliable corresponding references. .

In case, Epthorn claims that the contents in KU is too promotional tone, but at least tohse contents are supported by the evidences. However, the bases of Epthorn's claims are barely from his own, private, subjective mind. If you want to raise questions or revise anything, why don't you have your strong supportive evidences, which you exactly asked me to do so?

PM- I am not threatening "you", I am raising concerns about the tone of the article. Please note that I need no sources to do so, either- the burden of proof is on what is included in the article. In other words, every statement must be backed up (within reason). Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ADVERT for information on this area- specifically the section on "Advertisements masquerading as articles".
One more problem. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RSUE -you have added numerous links (some of them from Korea University). Unfortunately, this is the English wikipedia. While such links are great on Korean Wikipedia, they are in the incorrect language for this one. Can we find some links in English for verifiability?
Epthorn 20:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your concerns are just 'your concerns'. There's no clause on Wikipedia referring that all references should be written in English. If so, bring it to me. Whatever you claim, most of sentences in the main thread are now underpinned with references.
I see you didn't check Wikipedia's rules on the subject.

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources... Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English: Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly. Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." Epthorn 07:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


You said you became a Korean citizen, and it doesn't make sense if you can't read Korean. If so, how do you possibly pass the Korean test to become a citizen?
Who I am is unimportant to the discussion unless you want to keep up with the ad hominem, this is English wikipedia.Epthorn 07:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
And in terms of English, if you read what I cited above, translations are also acceptable (though not preferable). If one of citations is an English news story, for example, that might make the others unnecessary. The point is that someone should be able to verify an English article with the sources if at all possible. Epthorn 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


As I said, if you wish to change of delete contents, you need to have right supportive reasons and 'backups' to do so as you said. Simply saying, you can't change or delete the contents underpinned by 'backups'.
You can change the *tone* of an article if it is NPOV regardless of sources, although I would have no intention of deleting facts pertinent to the article. Epthorn 07:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
In addition, your claim on the tone of main thread is completely based on your own idea. Have you ever any survey? If so, please bring it to me before you make any actions. Another thing I like to ask to you is that your addiction only on Korea University thread makes your original claim (hatred on meaningless university editwars and rivaries) so funny. I hope you look around what you have done. That's the main reason I still have doubt on your true identity.Patriotmissile 04:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by "Have you ever any survey?".

--> That means how did you decide that the thread is too promotional tone, ok?

Since I haven't edited anything I can not really be condemned as starting an edit war, can I? Epthorn 07:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, even I found your responding pattern is exactly matched to what Brincos showed, haha is it really coincidence? You haven't answered me about your addiction solely on Korea University thread.
One thing you also should remind that once you changed contents regardless of your intention and purpose, your revision can also be assessed by others, including me. As you have a right to fix and judge, I have a right, too. So that will be the start of editing war.
Ok if you wanna do something go ahead. It seems that most contents of threads for Korean universities here in English Wikipedia are backed up by Korean references. As you kindly suggested, I will also revise and raise questions on those contents in the threads for Korean universities supported by Korean references.
I may start from Sungkyunkwan university where tons of contents are supported by Korean references, as well as adding the facts distorted in Sungkyunkwan university thread. Please don't get me wrong. I don't mean I will do something if you do as a threatening mean. Hmmm there are too many too be erased and fixed.Patriotmissile 14:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


You have declared an "edit war" as well as made consistent accusations (without evidence) of misrepresentation on my part. You make such accusations yet do not do so to the appropriate admins, showing what I consider a decided lack of good faith on your part. You have reverted changes without explanation. I am reverting to the previous changes unless you can justify why the changes- which I believe were in superior English- were reverted. Further, given this continued behavior I think we have exhausted what we can do in this regard, so I am requesting third party opinions. Should you have further ideas of how to continue, please add them- otherwise it seems an impasse has been reached. Epthorn 18:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

One more suggestion- I reverted the changes to athletics, but if you read carefully I did so because there were grammatical mistakes. Again, none of the substance was changed- nothing material, only the structure of the sentences. Epthorn 18:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A few hours ago, Patriotmissile gave a sincere apology to Epthorn as shown in [14] for having accused Epthorn of being a sockpuppet of me, Brincos. I'd just like to make it sure for whom to read this discussion with clarity. I am not Epthorn. Patriotmissile just made a wrong guess and did absurd accuse. Brincos 06:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Brincos has accused of a false charge on sockpuppetry, and I was out of the charge after investigation done by administrators.However, Brincos still makes a malicious propaganda on me as a sockpeppeteer. It is a seriuos misconduct, and in future, if this occurs again, I will make this misconduct protruded officially.Patriotmissile 14:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't you read English? Go to [15] and read the conclusion. It says "Possible that these accounts have been operated by the same person." -_- Don't you know the definition of the sock puppetry? This is another free lesson for you. Go to [16] and read what the sock puppetry is. Please don't confuse you were not blocked with you haven't done any sock puppeteering. Brincos 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

'Can't you read English?', what an attitude you have! Brincos, you are the one who clearly said you were so sure that I had done sockpuppetry, and as payment for that charge, I would be kicked out after investigation by administrators, right?

Moreover, can't you read English? Possible that these accounts have been operated by the same person.,--> where the hell could you possibly draw the conclusion from this sentence that administrators decided that I am a sockpuppeteer. It is a just remark reiterating your charge based on your imaginatory evidence. By the way, I still remember you have confessed your plausible illigal tracking on other users' computer using your computer specialty, and I made a petition to administrators.Patriotmissile 14:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely told you to read [17] which defines what the sock puppetry is. I also told you not to confuse you were not blocked with you haven't done any sock puppeteering. And I told you I am still waiting for the third party you mentioned at the time of 14:35, 14 September 2007 in [18]. Could you even remember how many times you have told me that you would report? How about the official channels you mentioned at the time of 23:55, 22 October 2007 in [19]? Still being busy to report? I am really tired of your BRAG, dude. Brincos 15:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I aint ur dude. Since when & who allow you to call me 'dude'. Don't ever do that again. In addition, so do you have any final sentences from administrators referring that I am a sockpuppeteer? If so, bring it. Otherwise, I really recommend you to be quiet about you imaginary charge on me. I will report to administrators strongly next time, if you do so again. Also, be patient. Someday you will see what you expect.Patriotmissile 01:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Patriotmissile, please refrain and think about yourself and your attitude. You were already accused many times by other users due to your attitude. OK. I don't want any meaningless talk with you any more. Please look into your heart. I've already read your intent to remove all your contributions to Wikipedia ( in SilkyTalk ) and also found you erased all the abusive discussion left in your own page. You need a new start, right? Please let me be on your side for that. Please refrain, bro. Brincos 06:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Brincos, please please, think and consider yourself first before you make any comments. Don't you think the words from you can exactly be appliable to yourself? Please think how much you are striving to protect the thread for Sungkyunkwan university where you graduated. You are the one who have obsessed this KU thread without any particular reasons. Contradictionalry, it seems that you really hate someone elses try to fix the SKKU thread.
Please remind that somethings you abhor can also be detested by others, too. Please try to be lenient to others like you are so lenient to yourself. Also, please don't interpret my words with your own judgement. I talked the word I left in my box, simply because the fact that even the contents with relaible references can be removed by the so-called third party, who is just another Wikipeida single user.

Your interpretation of my word is obviously wrong and seems to be distorted on purpose to be used as harm on my eputation in here by you,Brincos. You really can't throw out your bad habit, arbitrarism. Please consider that others also have plausibly better intellectual abaility than yourself, as the way I think when I talk someelse. And I am not your bro clealy. I think I have asked you to stop calling me that way several times. Please be courteous. At least, I don't ceaselessly bother you continuously by making continuous changes on the SKKU thread, though with nothing but trues with references. I hope you understand my attitude is a reflection of your primary attitude, and I can change my attitude anytime depending on your attitude.Patriotmissile (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Patriotmissile, first, I have never mentioned that I had graduated from Sungkyunkwan university. I have never mentioned that I am an alumnus of that university. I've just mentioned that the page has been my interest. Every person in Wikipedia definitely knows you already have been accused many times due to your attitude by many other users. Have you ever seen any person (other than you) accused me due to my edit/discuss attitude? NO. But you have a lot. Do you know what it means, bro? (For your convenience, I can enumerate the records here other guys have accused you so far to remind you but, bro, I don't want. Please let me be on your side.) Brincos (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some of discussions above don't seem to be important for KU

so it should be deleted. If you guys wanna have a mouth-fight, do it on your own user pages. Talking page is not your private page. Whether you are a hooligan of not, i don't care, but please, don't possess this page as it was only for you guys. adidas 21:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe archiving the discussions would be appropriate? Epthorn 14:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I archived the old closed discussion (it ended before September)- it is now on the archive page at the top /Archive 1. Also, I moved topics to the places they should be, chronologically- in other words, the first is first on the page and the last is last. Users, please add any new topics to the end of the page, not the beginning so it flows. Also, if I screwed something up in trying to clean this up, let me know. Epthorn 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academic section edits

I have edited the academic section for grammar. Patriotmissile please explain why you insist on adding errors into the section- this would be most useful compared to the practice of simply reverting it back to the version you wrote. Keep in mind the 3R rule, as well. Epthorn 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Changes

Because this article is full of grammatical mistakes, and there are many redundancies, I suggest some changes:

Strong academic reputation, nurturing manpower, craddling (misspelled) manpower, producing prominent figures, and influencing society are very redundant, and serve no purpose other then advertising through rote learning.

I think it would be helpful to cut out some of the redundancies and fix the grammar, but I'd like to get a consensus before making changes. Konamaiki 03:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the direction I was going in. If you would like to make changes I Would be interested in seeing them, and I think that's the right idea- especially to try and fit this article to the rest on universities. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities Epthorn 04:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Taken from the University Project, here is an example of a 'featured' article: Cornell_University.Epthorn 05:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it will be good to take a look at what a featured article about a university looks like and try to improve this one. Grunty Thraveswain 12:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Without commenting on the neutrality issue (I haven't reviewed it), non-english references are perfectly fine. As are offline references to books or scientific journals, many of which cost a substantial amount (hundreds of dollars a year for access to Nature for example). Even offline references to non-english sources such as a book in korean, provided they are a reliable source. -Mask? 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification and for your concern for this article! Grunty Thraveswain 12:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's that simple. Verifiability is the key, and if there is no reference to English- even if it's just a translation done by a user- the verifiability of the page is not as effective, since you then have to depend on the translations of a layman. See #Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. Sources in other languages are not useless, and should not be deleted (unless redundant) but should be augmented by a translation of those citations, a quote from them in English (with the original source intact) or at least supplemented by additional sources that, while perhaps not as good, are in English. I think we should be able to find some sources in English that make the relevant points on this page, however, (regarding history, statistics, and rankings) so I don't think it will necessarily be an issue. Epthorn 14:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've asked for some clarification of the non-English source policy on the verifiability talk page if anyone is interested. Epthorn 14:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It can be that simple. Is the source verifiable by someone with access? Yes. Are we reasonably sure the user isn't making crap up? I believe so. It's fine. Remember, the policy is VERFIABILTY not VERIFIED -Mask? 19:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
And the discussion you folks initiated on the WT:V page said essentially the same thing. You're doing a remarkable job keeping a seemingly heated discussion civil, but theres quite a bit of distrust. Remember to use common sense an assume good faith and you'll have this licked in no time. :) -Mask? 19:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the rivalry among schools does tend to lead to a fair amount of... trust issues when it comes to sources, and the languages can just complicate that further. I think one thing we can do is not have 10 sources for one statement, but find one or two good sources and that way it should be simpler to establish them. If they're in Korean and no equiv. English source is there, we can always bother random Korean speakers. Happily the edits done by someone who came into the fray generally disposed of the problem as they established a NPOV and did away with statements that were so outlandish that they looked particularly odd to me. Epthorn 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Recent surgery on this thread

It was indeed a huge surgery on KU thread. I honestly feel enervated since all the contents supported with references, though writeen in Korean, were just removed regardless of their authenticity. Well, if it is the way of wikipedia, I understand this and I may try to apply this clean-up standard to all other threads for equality.Patriotmissile 19:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed and cleaned up dead hyperlinks, and consequently removed the tag for clean up. Let me know if you have a trouble on it.Patriotmissile 20:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As Patriotmissile suggested, I think it's appropriate to remove the POV tag at this point. Anyone disagree? Epthorn 21:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree also. PoV is useless in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudmaker (talk • contribs) 06:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping Internationalisation section in the article looks absurd

"Internationalisation" [20] section depends on the rankings (which change annually) by the mass media such as Joongang Ilbo [21] who ranked Korea university at the 2nd in 2006 as shown in the article. However, in 2007, Korea university fell to the 6th [22] which is not good any more. Therefore, we can't draw any steady conclusion in this section as the ranking changes annually. I think this section is better to be deleted. OR we need to keep "just putting" this ranking in this section annually whenever the ranking is annouced by Joongang Ilbo for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and so on. However, in my opinion, it looks absurd but would like to ask how you guys think. Brincos 21:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think of erasing this section if there is no major objection after waiting for other opinions which might be for a while. Brincos 06:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that Joongang Ilbo ranking is not a formula ranking in Korea. But Joongang Ilbo is one of the 4-major newspapers in Korea, so I think it is notable. Let me add one more thing. Globalisation is now a main 'goal' of KU. KU visited world-famous university presidents in 100th anniversary in 2005. 'Global KU' is becoming another nickname of KU. So this section is necessary to describe what KU really is. But there will be more references that everybody in 'english wikipedia'(Not korea wikipedia) can understand. (increasing numbers of foreign students, faculties, improvements of establishments as the such 'global standard'. adidas 05:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about the Joongang Ilbo ranking. I do think, however, that Korea University has a strong intent to internationalize and that the page should probably reflect this. It does not need to be in terms of rankings, but instead can be focused on the commitment to the program by the university itself, which can be verified through its own sources. Epthorn 13:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Brincos misunderstood the principal purpose for references. There are so many universities in Wikipedia in which contain the references based on annual announcements, including US news ranking and The Times ranking. What on earth are there any reasons that Joongang-il-bo can't be qualified to be used as a reference? Though the rank was slipped to 6th in 2007, that doesn't mean the rank is low and 'fell', which is as described by Brincos. It is also fact that in 2006, Korea University was ranked to 2nd in terms of internationalization. It is not falsifiation, so as to be valid as a reference to be addressed. By the way, I need to check the neutrality of contents and unlawful deletion of contents in theSungkyunkwan university thread. Would you help me up, guys?Patriotmissile 01:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Patriotmissile, I have never said "Joongang-il-bo can't be qualified to be used as a reference." You misunderstood my comment. Please read once more what I wrote more carefully. I just wrote this section depends on the rankings (which change annually) by the mass media such as Joongang Ilbo. I also think Joongang Ilbo is a good reference for this topic, but I just thought this section seemed to greatly depend on the changeful annual ranking. OK. If so, could you please put the 2007 Joongang-Ilbo Internationalisation ranking here for us? Thanks. Brincos 05:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Brincos, you might not directly indicate the case as I described, but you clearly stated that the reference is meaningless due to its past-oriented information, leading to inappropriateness to be used as a reference. However, there are so many university threads, including Washington U, U of Michigan, and so forth, still use the out-dated references for ranking. Since the references cleary contain the information when those facts were publicized, and though they are not most recent information, that doesn't mean the references are false.

It is matter of choice which references published on which year, though they surely must be based on trues without second opinions, one will use, even though they are not the newest. Like you, Brincos, dislikes to be uploaded some contents, which are obviously true with relaible refences on your Sungkyunkwan university thread, I think it is better to be decided which references preferentially be used, by the university thread who have no malicious intention to harm the threads.Patriotmissile (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I have never mentioned that the reference is meaningless. To the contrary, I clearly mentioned that all the annual rankings from Joongang Ilbo can be put in this section (at the time of 21:59, 26 October 2007). OK. Let's keep updated. Could you please put the 2007 Joongang-Ilbo Internationalisation ranking here for us? Brincos (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
  5. ^ [5]
  6. ^ [6]
  7. ^ [7]
  8. ^ [8]


[edit] total surgery is in need

I'm an editor of Korean version of Korea University article. English version of the article seems to have so many problems. there are just 'short' informations which can be found in daily newspapers, but no important informations which describe what real Korea University is.

I'm doing my duty as a riot police in Korea, so I have not enough time to compile and edit the whole article. Somebody can do this surgery. If you can read Korean, Korean article will help. adidas 05:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of what you think would describe what the 'real Korea University' is? We've been struggling over what should and what should not be in the article, which may explain why it seems like there is not as much information there as before. Epthorn 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
All I can say to you is just "watch the Korean page". I think that page is better than here.

adidas 03:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)