Talk:Test of English Proficiency (South Korea)

message: edit 2014.3.13
i do apologise if i violate the common form / style.
i read up on the single reference and it is not freely accessible even from within seoul national university. furthermore it is published in the SNU owned journal published by the institute which developed the language test. everything there screams conflict of interest. i would therefore recommend to remove the citation about TEPS being 'fair'
147.46.81.67 (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me also say that the criticism section reeks of original research, so much that taking them out would wreck the section. While I'm guessing there is some truth to it, whoever wrote it failed to cite it well enough nor does s/he know how to cite well: One citation said "Look at the TEPS test".--BirdKr (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole criticism article, from reading the history page, seemed to be entirely original research, and by the far the largest I've seen. I've deleted the entire thing. --BirdKr (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Even if the problem truly exists in South Korea, you must cite it with reliable sources with statements based on those sources, not from your own opinion/experience. --BirdKr (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Let me present the flaws in the criticism's citations:
*The ones that refer to cites Wikipedia articles are not valid as it is not deemed "reliable" according to Wikipedia's policy. 
*The editorial from Unihope talks about the state of TOEFL for Korean students, and then you expand it with your own analysis (original research) on TEPS.
*The 1st Korea Times article is only used to cite the $$$ of private tutors. 
*The 2nd Korean Times article is merely a supplement to the paragraph, not the main point of the paragraph. 
*The citation from the KMA article isn't even a citation for the thesis: you're arguing against it.
*There is a HUGE flaw in a Wikipedia article citing itself to verify a statement.
Please address these before you try to put that article back in. If not, I will request this article to be semi-protected and ask for second opinions from others to determine whether it is original research.
--BirdKr (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the problem truly exists in South Korea, you must cite it with reliable sources with statements based on those sources, not from your own opinion/experience. --BirdKr (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 221.162.214.29

message: The IP user has written an essay/section that is generally original research (he even implies it is as a thesis proved as it's read). I have reverted his edits three times with specific reasons and yet he has failed to reply to them and claims it is not original research. S/he has even signed his or her moniker at the end of the section.
I wish for the page to be protected until we resolve the problem of poor citations and original research on the section. --BirdKr (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for protected page 

message: I don't have documentation for the following, so I'm not putting it into the article, but it seems generally accepted here in academic Korea.  TEPS was developed by SNU in order to staunch the money flow out of the country to ETS for TOEIC and to a lesser extent for TOEFL.  An added beneift was that the makers of the test would bet lots of money. Another aspect of the test is that it has been created by Koreans, so that it is easier for Koreans to understand.  (To what extent this last is good or bad is probably not some-thing that belongs in Wik.)
Kdammers (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for TEPS