Talk:Korea University

message: The 'Leading Internationalisation' and 'Global KU 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Neutral?

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: POV/Neutrality redux

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: 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 , . 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.
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 ,,. 
Along the modern Korean history, Korea University has been one of the craddles of manpower in Korean society . 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 .     
These sentences need dealing with before returning them to the article. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problematic sentences from lead section

message: 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)
thread_title: Patriotmissile make the threat against someone

message: 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)
thread_title:  some of discussions above don't seem to be important for KU 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Academic section edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed Changes

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you very much for the clarification and for your concern for this article! Grunty Thraveswain 12:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title: Recent surgery on this thread 

message: "Internationalisation"  section depends on the rankings (which change annually) by the mass media such as Joongang Ilbo  who ranked Korea university at the 2nd in 2006 as shown in the article. However, in 2007, Korea university fell to the 6th  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Keeping ''Internationalisation'' section in the article looks absurd 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Yes, we could, but I agree that that may be going too far. However, the argument for SNU(under its previous name Kyungsung Jaeguk Univeristy) being older than KU still holds. Amirite? Btw, it annoys me whenever I update the THESQ world rankings from '06->'09, it gets undone. This gives a false and inaccurate impression of KU's current standing...2nd place in Korea? Today it's considered 5th in Korea(behind SNU, KAIST, Yonsei, Pohang) and 200+ worldwide... I know that leaving '06 rankings is not a factual inaccuracy/distortion per se, but it does give misleading info in favor of looking good on an online encyclopedia...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkwon (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kyungsung Jaeguk University is a Japanese university. BTW, everyone knows that THESQ world ranking is crap. Dartmouth is ranked in the 85 while NYU is ranked in the 52. It's simply just a fact that KU was placed 2nd in S.Korea in 2006, and you don't need to be worried about a false and inaccurate impression. I understand that you're a Yonsei student and it annoys you. But as you said, instead of continuing this fruitles(and probably endless) debate, you might want to focus on the fact that Yonsei is the best endowned university in Korea and update that on the Yonsei University article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobbyworthh (talk • contribs) 08:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  total surgery is in need 

message: Absolutely no evidence this campus is independently notable of the main university Star Mississippi 03:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They are absolutely different schools, they only share the same foundation. It's not as if some majors are in the Seoul campus and some majors are in Sejong(like Sungkyunkwan University), it's two totally different schools. Korea University is extremely hard to be accepted to(one of the top 3 schools in Korea, have to be in top 3% of all the students) while Korea University Sejong is much easier to get into(You can get accepted if you have about the mean grade.) 203.247.149.102 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Korea University Sejong Campus]] into [[Korea University]] 

message: Revisiting this, as I don't think one comment, which is based in opinion and not policy, is sufficient to indicate this shouldn't be merged Star Mississippi 16:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Theknowhowman would you mind reverting your tag removal? I just opened a new discussion yesterday as I don't think we established consensus above with one comment. Star Mississippi 14:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I agree with @Star Mississippi. Even if they are technically different schools, there's the question of how notable the separation is. I don't think the Sejong Campus merits its own entire separate article, and it's not like the Korea University article is extremely long either. toobigtokale (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

text: @Star Mississippi, I think you can go ahead and make the merge, given the lack of opposition. toobigtokale (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Korea University Sejong Campus]] into [[Korea University]] 

message: Especially in comparison to the articles for other major South Korean universities, this is a pretty decent article. Nice toobigtokale (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow