Talk:Severance Hospital

Yonsei Severance Hospital

Amongst the following reference source(s), please point out the specific passage(s) on which you rely in posting "Yonsei Severance Hospital"?

• "연세대학교 의대 세브란스병원 (延世大學校醫大 ─ 病院)" (in Korean). Empas/ Britannica.
• "연세대학교의료원 (延世大學校醫療院)" (in Korean). Empas/ EncyKorea.
• Official Website

As you know, the alternate name for this hospital will need to be removed from the introduction unless something in these sources specifically utilizes the precise language you have added -- see diff

In order to be both clear and non-confrontational, I would hope you will construe it as helpful for me to direct your attention to a familiar paragraph at WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Perhaps this becomes a very simple matter, easily resolved? --Tenmei (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You're a Japanese who is supposed to be able to read Chinese characters, so why don't you try to even read the "Chinese characters" of the sources? Very hard task for you?--Caspian blue 23:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This posting is non-responsive and pointlessly provocative. I believed at the time that ignoring such misdirection was the most constructive contribution I could make. That view has changed. It now seems clear that such confrontational prose needs to be labelled as such and rebuffed as unhelpful. --Tenmei (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The institution does not call its self "Yonsei University Severance Hospital". See its webpage. (Occidentalist (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).

Comment: The questions I raised about the phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital" were informed by the following:

• Severance Hospital: "Severance Hospital Ushers in New era," Chosun Ilbo. May 11, 2005.
• Severance Hospital International Health Center
• Yonsei University Health System (YUHS)
• Yonsei University Medical Center (YUMC): Kim, H-J. et al. (2000). "Design of a full-PACS with experiences of mini-PACS in Yonsei University Medical Center," PACS design and evaluation conference, San Diego, California, United States; February 15, 2000 ... referencing "1,582 beds in Shinchon Severance hospital in main university campus and 746 beds in affiliated Youngdong Severance hospital which is 20 miles away from the main campus" but not explicitly naming "Yonsei Severance Hospital"
• U.S. National Institute of Health: Study 8 of 24 for search of Yonsei Severance Hospital ... none using the explicit name "Yonsei Severance Hospital"
• Embassy of the United States, Seoul: health information.

This is not proof that Caspian blue is wrong, but the difficulty in responding to specific questions is a reasonable cause for asking more questions. I had thought that by accepting "Yonsei University Severance Hospital" as a step in the right dirction, it could become a common foundation from which to work. That now appears to have been an overly optimistic approach to a seemingly intractable and inexplicable resistance? --Tenmei (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You blindly reverted my edits regardless of the newly provided sources. Yonsei University, College of Medicine Severance Hospital is an official name, and people commonly call the hospital "Yonsei University Severance Hospital" or "Yonsei Severance Hospital" if you see the references. You follow my edits and want to cause problems.--Caspian blue 06:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment:There was nothing "blind" in Occidentalist's rejection of additional reference sources which simply do not prove the point -- that is, not a single source Caspian blue has proffered thus far supports the specific, exact phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital"; and the additional fruitless research, while not proving the term is invalid, does raise the level of incredulity which has been exacerbated by the provocative, confrontational and inflammatory tone Caspian blue chooses to present again and again. --Tenmei (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Official name?

I emailed them. It is officially called Severance Hospital. At no time in its history was it called Yonsei University Severance Hospital.

The articles discuss Yonsei Medical Center and call it "Severance Hospital". It is simple. (Occidentalist (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).

So where is the evidence of the email? Also why did you still put the {{OR}}, {{Synthesis}}, {{Noreference}} tags? The infomation found in the encyclopedias confirm the another title. You can forward your email to WP:OTRS team, so I can also verify your claim. --Caspian blue 14:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material, original research, and synthesis

The contrived phrase "Yonsei Severance Hosptial" appears to be unsourced material. It is appropriate and reasonable that the phrase is tagged with the relevant templates which have been posted on the main page. Moreover, this has been explained and amplified by appropriate comments already posted on this talk page -- see above.

This continuing objection concerns what seems to be nothing more than a curious neologism. To use a term Caspian blue introduces into this dispute/discussion, it seems to be, on the basis of available data, to be a kind of "hoax"?

Summarizing the causes for dispute in words which are incorporated into the tag templates:

• 1. The phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital" needs credible citations for verification.
• 2. The phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital" is based entirely on original research or unverified claims.
• 3. The phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital" is based entirely on an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources.

Unless the phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital" is improved by adding references, (a) the justifiable attack on its veracity will remain unrelenting; and (b) the wiki-procedures now in place anticipate that unsourced material will be challenged and removed.

A plausible response would [have] be[en] for anyone to help improve this questioned redirect by proffering reliable references. A mere "revert" without more will prove unsatisfactory. Why can't this become a very simple matter, easily resolved? --Tenmei (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue -- The following source citations adequately address the reasonable questions I have asked ad nauseum without an answer before this:

• "Cho Byung-kuk: Lifelong Guardian Angel of Adoptees". The Chosun Ilbo. Oct.30,2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) citing Yonsei University Severance Hospital
• "`Stomach Cancer Recovery 17 Times Higher if Detected Early`". The Dong-a Ilbo. NOVEMBER 11, 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) citing Yonsei University Severance Hospital

In response, you will note that I have stricken the words which presented a question which has now been answered. One sentence has not been stricken; and I repeat it now for redundant clarity: A plausible response would have been for anyone to help improve this questioned redirect by proffering reliable references.

However, Caspian blue the words you posted in the edit box by are uncalled-for, unwelcome, offensive. I recopy them here for redundant clarity -- you posted:

• (diff) (hist) . . Severance Hospital‎; 04:18 . . (+404) . . Caspian blue (Talk | contribs) (rvv by User:Tenmei's habitual disrutpion / The Korean encyclopedias info are regarded reliable, and there are no OR/SYN unlike your false accusation. / add more English sources due to the trolling)
• 1. "habitual disruption" ... NO. Your words have offended me. Stop.
• 2. WP:OR and WP:SYN were not "false accusation;" rather it was an accurate assessment based on the information available AND -- this is crucial -- both were always mentioned in a context which invited you or anyone else to simply demonstrate in a manner consistent with WP:V that the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severence Hospital was incorporated in the text of a credible source. I am not offended by a mistake, but if you persist in claiming that anything to do with this matter is a "false accusation," I may be offended and I will ask you to stop.
• 3. One further point, I have not now or ever claimed, suggested or implied that a credible Korean encyclopedia is not reliable. I have questioned whether the specific citations. In response, you provided were sufficient to verify the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital."

Caspian blue -- I will assume that you have read and understood these words and ideas. If you do not understand any or all of it, you have only to ask questions; and I will try to respond clearly and reasonably. In the absence of further questions, I will assume that this represents a foundation plank from which you and I will build a more constructive working relationship. --Tenmei (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei

Tenmei (talk · contribs), the Korean sources are reliable and you blatantly disregard the sources because of your inability of reading the sources. I also provided a result from google search and you just refused to look at it. I inserted additional citations just for the title because of your constant harassment and trolling to me and articles. You may be good at some area but you're the last person that I want to share with my time in Wikipedia. You just want to deny any results that the usages of Yonsei for Yonsei University is dominant over the Japanese term referring to the fourth generation of Japanese immigrants.

The only reason that I currently support Yonsei stays as a DAB page at the Talk:Yonsei (disambiguation) is to stay "far far far away from you", and to stop talking with you regardless of whether this dispute is just wrapped up without any consensus or not. I hope you indulge in the subject with your "grand ambition" for the generation articles. This decision is not because your obstinate insistence is logical or persuasive to me, but because any conversation with you is totally worthless with no gain, and just causes me to have increasingly excruciating "headache", "fatigue", "exhaustion", and "stress". Along with your absurd accusations regarding "hoax"ness, you also "distorted" that I did not do research on the subject before nominating the AFD. As I already stated, I "did" research and checked sources with some deal of time. I would have no intention to retract my position even if we were going back to the time of the AFD was right open. You're not the only one who read the request by Dekkappai back then. I sometimes checked to see if he is back from his retirement in my hopeful thinking. Before that, I've also known the meaning/position of issei, and nisei placed in the history of Asian immigration along with Chinese-American history through books/documentaries/movies etc, but "yonsei"? *shrug*. Besides, if you check on the history of Yonsei University article, you will see my name on May for the redirect and hat note. I suggest you to rethink about why you don't get much attention from people on the contrary of your lengthy postings here and there. Do not intentionally make people irritated further.--Caspian blue 04:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's kidding who?

Caspian blue -- For the moment, I will only respond to the first sentence of this undistinguished posting. For redundant clarity, what you wrote bears re-copying here:

Tenmei, "the Korean sources are reliable and you blatantly disregard the sources because of your inability of reading the sources. I also provided a result from google search and you just refused to look at it."

FACT: I have not now or ever construed ... "Korean sources as unreliable ..."

• Do not post such inflammatory, provocative, confrontational sentences in any context which involves me. I consider this as a personal attack and I will respond vigorously if you ever do it again. To be redundantly CLEAR, PRECISE, UNAMBIGUOUS: You damn well need to be prepared with credible proof of such a claim in future or you can expect for me to shove this unconscionable, extravagant invective to be shoved down your throat sideways. It is my intention with this sentence to be idiomatically emphatic.

FACT: I have not now or ever ... "blatantly disregard[ed] the [Korean] sources ..."

• Do not post such inflammatory, provocative, confrontational sentences in any context which involves me. I consider this as a personal attack and I will respond vigorously if you ever do it again. To be redundantly CLEAR, PRECISE, UNAMBIGUOUS: You damn well need to be prepared with credible proof of such a claim in future or you can expect for me to shove this unconscionable, extravagant invective to be shoved down your throat sideways. It is my intention with this sentence to be idiomatically emphatic.

FACT: I have not now or ever disregarded, devalued, underappreciated, ignored, diminished, or denied Korean sources or citations presented in Korean ... "because of your[an] inability of[to] reading the sources."

• Do not post such inflammatory, provocative, confrontational sentences in any context which involves me. I consider this as a personal attack and I will respond vigorously if you ever do it again. To be redundantly CLEAR, PRECISE, UNAMBIGUOUS: You damn well need to be prepared with credible proof of such a claim in future or you can expect for me to shove this unconscionable, extravagant invective to be shoved down your throat sideways. It is my intention with this sentence to be idiomatically emphatic.

At the same time, I want to make abundantly clear, that there is no Wikipedia-related obligation that I should have needed to go to the trouble of translating a Korean-language citation, as is explicitly explained in the following passage from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-english sources:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

Burden of evidence

For how to write citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references.

In sum, my response to the one sentence you have posted is: Who's kidding who? This needs to be last in a series of postings which are characterized by over-reaching ....

This is not a problem I should have to deal with.

Caspian blue -- Pull yourself together. Think about this in a thoughtful, step-by-step fashion. Stop creating the appearance of problems which don't need to be problems at all. Stop contriving accusations which simply cannot withstand closer scrutiny ... as is amply illustrated in the first sentence of the posting above. --Tenmei (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue -- As you know, for further explanation, it is reasonable to incorporate the threads developed at Talk:Yonsei Severance Hospital. --Tenmei (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Raising the level of dispute

Caspian blue -- My interest here is in raising the level of dispute; and that means

wiki-QUALITY = WP:V

Neither the quality of Wikipedia articles nor the level of dispute is enhanced by innuendo, not by derision, not by attempting to be offensive, confrontational, inflammatory, provocative ... and your recent edits give me cause to worry that somehow I might have failed inform you in terms that are clear, plain, unambiguous? --Tenmei (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Are three templates legitimate or simple trolling?

• User:Tenmei has been trying to make the article and Yonsei Severance Hospital page[1][2] have serious concerns about unverified syntheis, original research, needing additional sources as putting the three templates regardless of provided links to the article. His intention is strongly linked to disputes over WP:PRIME for Yonsei: which one is a primary topic between Yonsei University and Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei). Please leave any input on this fiasco. Thanks.

Note that the above text was posted by Caspian blue; and the diff was inadvertently left unsigned.

Comment: I would have thought a non-controversial section heading would have been more constructively focused on whether a citation is or is not needed for the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital"? However, the issue as provocatively articulated by Caspian blue could become a helpful corollary topic as amplified in the threads developed on the page above. --Tenmei (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The section heading is bad, unless this is intended as an RfC for user conduct. If the latter then the venue is wrong. I would suggest "RfC: When should the name of the article subject require a source", or some such. Taemyr (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit unclear what exactly this RfC is about. There are four issues here, and they are not so closely linked as I think the participants believe.

1. Should the name "Yonsei Severance Hospital" be included in the article, and does it need a citation?
2. Should Yonsei Severance Hospital redirect here, does the redirect require a source?
3. Should this article be included in the Yonsei_(disambiguation)?
4. The issue about primary topic for Yonsei.

The last item is discussed at Talk:Yonsei (disambiguation), and since the hospital is not suggested as a primary topic is really not relevant.

The first point is governed by WP:V, every fact needs to be verifiable. Conventionally however few articles does cite the AKA's. There is also the issue weight, if the name Yonsei Severance Hospital is used very rarely having it in the lead as an alternate name can be seen as giving undue weight. I do not know enough about Korea to comment in a meaningful manner on the question of weight.

The second issue, is better resolved at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. However, the claim that any user typing "Yonsei Severance Hospital" into the search bar is looking for this article is hard to disbelieve. The redirect does not require sources, since such sources would never be seen by the reader. It does touch upon the first issue though, since when we redirect an alternate name it is preferable to include that name in the lead. But I do not think the requirement is strong, if due weight or lack of verifiability means that the name is not included in the article I believe the redirect should stay as long as it is plausible.

The third issue, should the hospital be included on the dab, is essentially unrelated. The inclusion of Severance Hospital on Yonsei is governed by one thing; is the hospital known by "Yonsei". Not is the hospital known by a term that includes "Yonsei". Taemyr (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I could simply removed the template by Tenmei's usual trolling to the article, which I believe so, but this RFC is to give him have a chance to acknowledge his "eccentric" behaviors. The only reason he put the alleged unpublished synthesis and original research templates is to remove the alternative name of the hospital from the dab page. I provided reliable sources to the article, so there is no such allegation Tenmei insists. I'm not tolerate by such repeated harassment.--Caspian blue 02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Template conflict

I initially posted an RfC-template at the top of the article, e.g.,

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies.

In the short time it took to re-examine the process instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, I discover to my surprise that Caspian blue has posted the section heading above which links to a differently parsed RfC discussion page, e.g.,

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics

I would imagine that this minor conflict needs to be resolved? --Tenmei (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Language and linguistics is completely wrong, because this article is not about languages or linguistics. Economy, trade, and companies might be right, or Maths, science, and technology might be right, but not languages and linguistics. —Angr 16:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Language and linguistics is wrong. That just isn't what the article is about. I see no inherent problem with having the RfC posted at more than one place though. Taemyr (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least I did not make a mistake like putting the RFC template which should be placed on the talk page not on the main page.--Caspian blue 02:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)