Talk:Hwang Woo-suk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Other links

For more information on the scandal, please see the Interim report on Hwang Woo-Suk from Seoul National University (http://www.snu.ac.kr:6060/sc_sne_b/news/1195251_3497.html) and Science's coverage of the ordeal (http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/hwang2005/).

In addition, I feel the distinction between reproductive cloning (i.e. Dolly the Sheep) and therapeutic cloning (i.e. creation of stem cells produced by SCNT) is not clear enough in this article. In therapeutic cloning, the oocyte injected with somatic cell nuclear material is NOT implanted into a surrogate uterus, as in reproductive cloning.

please expand

I made this page very quickly, please expand on it as much as necessary. [unsigned comment by User:Ctong]

ethics

Just a question here, if it costs massive amounts of money to get hold of eggs for this research doesn't it make perfect sense for the researchers to use their own? Discarding the central issue on whether stem cell research is ethical then how on earth is using researchers eggs unethical? --Andrew F. 21:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that using subordinates' eggs raises concerns of coercion, which is considered unethical. Even if one has admissions by the donors that the donations were voluntary, it is difficult to judge whether this is so, especially given external pressures. --C S (Talk) 14:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

pic identity

The pic under "Early Life" is not of Mr. Hwang. Will someone replace it? Idée Fixe 08:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[1] says "Moon ŠinJong vo svojom laboratóriu Je členom tímu Národnej univerzity v Soule ktorý vedie Hwang WooSuk Juhokórejskí vedci ako prví na svete vypestovali klonovaním ľudské" about the picture. WAS 4.250 11:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the image. See Image_talk:Doctor-hwang-1990s.PNG for ongoing discussion on this. --C S (Talk) 11:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvience regarding the image, now it was replaced by another one, which dates back mid 1990s.HappyApple 19:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV problem

This article shows Dr. Hwang as a lier and unfair scientist, i dont think he deserves this, he has become into an icon for modern koreans. I believe a better version is needed.HappyApple 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to make it more neutral - I have included citations from BBC, Washington Post, and ABC News and renamed the title from "fraud and lies" to "controversy". I've left the NPOV tag on, though, since it seems you still have concerns. – ugen64 19:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

He admits to be a liar and the evidence is that he admited to being a fraud. Deal with it South Korea. (I would like to say something pro-Korean here, but ... it's like trying to say something pro-Israel ... dog gone it genes matter .. Why is that so unspeakable????????????????? (Clue : both jews and koreans score high in IQ tests) WAS 4.250 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you have expressed your views very explictly (here and in the edit summaries). But your recent edits were particularly egregious. Since when do we delete material like him [Hwang] being a professor and so forth, and replace it with "He confessed to fraud..."? This is first and foremost an article about the man. Biographical material about who he is, the positions he holds, and so forth are clearly important. I see no reason to delete this information; your actions are clearly wrong. Not to mention that you are so eager to put "he lied about it" all over the page that you even wrote it under a list of "unethical means" he lied about! Obviously you didn't read that very carefully. It's okay to express your POV on this talk page, but to let it lead to reckless editing like this is inexcusable. --C S (Talk) 23:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not reckless. I'm just not as good an editor as you. WAS 4.250 06:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the truth, Hwang Woo-suk himself has never admitted anything about the matter. In fact, he has just spoken in public that his 2005 achievement is real and that he will do it again to prove himself. I myself have been very disappointed about this event, but I still hope that his achievements are real. Hychu

I don't. It's disgusting, the way scientists and politicians alike claim that stem-cell research is going to save lives. Sure it will--the lives of the rich and privileged--the few that can afford it. When people invented things like chemical pesticides and more efficient methods of farming, some naive thinkers believed that no one would ever go hungry again. And yet here we are, physically capable of feeding everyone with our technology, but faced with the problem of extreme obesity in this country and starvation in that. And of course there is also the possibility that the new stem-cell technology will be abused in other ways as well... but I think that belongs on another page. xxcerise@yahoo.com

I would like it if people would research the Stem Cell Research topic a little more before objecting to it. Stem Cell Research in and of itself is not destructive. There are different types of stem cell research and the non-destructive types are the only ones that have been proven to be worth anything in the past 25 to 30 years. Umbilical Cord Blood stem cell research and Adult Stem Cell research are both ethical and acceptible methods of research to even most Christians. They do not harm life and they have been used to treat more than 70 diseases and injuries. Embryonic Stem Cell research is the destructive kind because it requires that we destroy the embryo as there is currently no way to extract stem cells from an embryo without killing it. There is research being done to figure out a way to keep the embryo (human) alive but even if they did, most tests using embryonic stem cells in animals have proven to be failures (due to cancer and other defects). - derikwilson@kc.rr.com

Not looking good for Hwang (Dec 17 2005)

After watching for myself all day long the reports and press conferences about Hwang and by Hwang himself and his accusers/former colleagues, I have no doubt that this is a terrible blow for South Korean morale. My bet is that the accusations of fabrication will probably pan out to be true, because of the number of witnesses against him (all project members) and the sincerity and emotion by which his most prominent accuser, Roh Sung-Il, ate up so much airtime all day long with tears running down his face confessing everything. A man only does that in Asia when he's confessing to something terrible and when the only thing left to do is to ask for forgiveness. Hwang, hwoever, is sticking it out to the end, Dick Cheney-style, probably with about the same amount of ignorance he had when he first decided to fabricate his research and hoped that no one would find out. He relied on the cloak and the pressure of the master-subordinate relationship to keep his secret under wraps, but that was about as ignorant and unrealistic as assuming that modern people these days are the same kind of slaves that they acted like in former decades. People these days are smart, and they also have consciences, which are attributes of people who live in free and advanced societies, which South Korea has made large strides in becoming in recent years. And lastly, a word about Seoul National University and Korean academic culture in general: In the university rankings I've seen, Seoul National (the "Harvard" of Korea) does not rank that high, with places like the University of British Columbia ranking much higher than it. In fact, I dont think Seoul National even ranks in the top 100 world universities. I've often tried to think of reasons for this over the years, but now I think the entire world can easily see why: Because if the people there can cheat like Hwang did, how symptomatic is it for the rest of the universities in Korea and of the academic culture in that country in general? It's universally acknowledged by Koreans themselves that university life for students is not as difficult as the last years of high school are for them, or in other words: After a hard stint in high school, university is supposed to be a place to take it easy. This is why there is a culture of cheating amongst the students, and no hard policies at universities to automatically and mercilessly expell any and all students who are caught cheating. In fact, if someone is caught cheating, it can very often be smoothed over by asking a professor that one knows well (or has bribed with gifts) to talk to the other professors involved and to work out a compromise or even total forgiveness. Compare this with Western universities who will mercilessly expell any student who cheats, with no debate or discussion. If this culture of cheating is lived by Korean students, I have no doubt it is also lived by the teachers as well, even the ones at the prestigious Seoul National. --Atrahasis 15:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO this article should be focused whether doctor's experiments were successful or not, instead arguing about if he lied or not.HappyApple 01:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, the allegations of cheating and lying are very relevant, since this is an article about Hwang Woo Suk, not just his research. And anyhow the two are closely interconnected.

Atrahasis, good observation about the cheating/university culture in Korea. I live in Korea and from what I've seen, unfortunately much of it is true. About Hwang: I believe that he cheated and lied. However, trying to prove that with Roh Sung-il's crocodile tears is pointless and inaccurate. (Not to mention your incorrect generalization about Asian men and the significance of their tears. Try watching a Korea soap opera--they have plenty of close-up shots of young men crying like pussies) Roh sung-il's act is manufactured, and disgustingly transparent. It's sickening. xxcerise@yahoo.com

I would say there's a huge difference between a man on a Korean TV melodrama shedding tears and when a man sheds tears over having made a great mistake which ruins his career. It's not just Roh's tears that are persuasive of Hwang's guilt at this point, it's the other allegations by the other team members on the project as well who have probably not (yet) gone on TV the way Roh did, but have expressed/confessed the falsehoods that they helped to cook up via other media. Then there are the ones who are rmaining strangely quiet whereas if the allegations were totally false they should be rushing to Hwang's defense with a vengeance. Then there is the added confusion of the different stories that these people are telling, ie whether all of the research was false or only parts of it. Lastly, there is just a personal feeling from watching Hwang answer the questions that were put to him at the recent press conference that he was being dodgy. Any way you look at it, logically it does not look like Hwang can possibly come out of this absolutely squeaky clean. --Atrahasis 14:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• My point wasn't that Hwang was innocent. I clearly stated at the beginning that I believed Hwang to be guilty.

What I wished to address was the problem with arguing emotionally, or trusting your instinct when making conclusions, which is what you seemed to have been doing at first. (Your other points, i.e. the confessions from team members-or even Roh's words minus the manipulative emotional waste-have more weight because they have to do with actual facts; actual claims. I do agree that there are other factors that correspond with Hwang's guilt. I have to add that there are some people that support some of Hwang's claims, but all the same it is all very fishy. ) Anyway, the problem with using emotions, and peoples' personalities/facial expressions as proof is that there can be many different interpretations for the same event/scene. For me, Roh's tears seemed too ostentatious to be 100% real. It seemed like he was flirting with the audience's sympathy. The way he sighs and uses that regretful expression--these things all seem very fake to me. On the other hand, Hwang himself seems sincere. Indeed, this kind of "argument" is what some of Hwang's defendors are attempting to use against the accusations. I simply don't think that my "feelings" about Hwang, Roh, and their respective facial expressions are particularly important or accurate in the face of actual evidence, in the same way that I don't think much of your "personal feeling" from watching Hwang on television. And of course Hwang cannot come out of this squeaky clean. He has already been proven guilty of ethical breaches in conducting his research, which is an issue whether or not he is lying about anything else. ---Also, it has been proven that many of the photographs from his article are false, if nothing else. Even if Hwang actually did succeed in cloning stem-cells, he will never be able to regain full credit because he definitely lied about the article.

By that coin, your argument that Roh's tears were "fake" is as illogical as arguing that they are "real"...niether of which I brought up. What I said was not whether they were real or fake, rather that a man does that in public only as a very last resort to ask for forgiveness and when he's confessing to something very bad that he did, and in this case Hwang is implicated in a very bad way indeed. --Atrahasis 17:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• No, I argued that Roh's tears SEEMED fake--to me. I used the word "seem" to clarify that it was nothing but a FEELING that I had about Roh's performance.

"My bet is that the accusations of fabrication will probably pan out to be true, because of... the SINCERITY and EMOTION by which... Roh Sung-Il, ate up so much airtime all day long with tears running down his face confessing everything." This quote, taken from the original posting, is what led me to believe that you thought Roh's tears to be "real" (sincere). Ultimately my point was that the real nature of Roh's tears don't really have a bearing on whether Hwang is lying or not.

Logically, your statement that Roh's tears "seem fake" is an appraisial of him based on his countenance and acting, exactly the thing you admonish against a bit later. I don't know what you got from my words, but anyways it seems you flew off on your own tangent there. --Atrahasis 08:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I only mentioned my appraisal to make the point that people speculate differently about the same event. This in turn shows why anyone's opinions (yours and mine included) on the sincerity of Roh's tears don't prove anything, much in the same way that an analogy proves nothing because it proves everything. Logically, you have to separate my actual argument (translating peoples' emotions to argue a point of view, i.e., to "attack" Hwang) and the "example" (my opinion of Roh's "false" show of emotion). Tangent would be a bit of an understatement. This discussion is no longer directly related to Hwang. But I don't think I'm the only one guilty of wandering. :D

I disagree...you in fact can judge a lot by reading peoples' emotions and body signals, which is the basis for not only things like lie detection and mentalism and even the trial-by-jury system, but also for non-verbal human communication in general, which is said to make up as much as 70% of human communication. You may not be able to accurately judge if item X that someone said is in fact true or not because of course truth can be independent of anyone's knowledge, but what you can judge is sincerity in their belief of X. Imo he seemed generally sorry and regretful that he had anything at all to do with this, and considering the context of the shame for his country and (probable) personal ruin he has caused, that's not a big leap to make. Saying he's sorry and confessing everything is just about the only thing he has left to do, and in this case his testimony heavily implicates Hwang, who needs a miracle now to redeem himself if even possible. --Atrahasis 16:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think those trying to cast this event as a matter of the supposed cheating culture of Korea are oversimplifying matters and ignorant of scientific culture. First of all, I am very familiar with university culture in the U.S. and cheating is rampant here also. Many professors don't care or overlook such cheating because they are busy and don't want to get involved in disciplinary measures. There might be even more cheating if it were not for a lowering of standards that is becoming more and more prevalent here in the U.S. Second, this kind of scholarly negligence/fraud is very common in science in varying degrees. There are probably many who "fudge" the data a little, or make a somewhat unsubstantiated claim and act like it's totally substantiated. There are less, but still a significant number, who realize their theory is flawed but spend a lot of time defending it. This is just human nature and scientists are not free of it. Many notable scientists of the past, Mendel, Galileo, Millikan, etc., are known to have falsified data. Watson and Crick, co-discoverers of the helical structure of DNA and Nobel laureates, inappropriately used (some would say "stole") another scientist's data.

Of course, scientists are supposed to hold themselves to higher standards and one would expect a very eminent one to do so. But my point is that this is not necessarily as simple as "Hwang lied" or "Hwang fabricated data". It's more likely to be a combination of wishful thinking, external pressures, and valid scientific work, as it usually is. It may very well turn out Hwang's questionable results are the result of valid work. At best, Hwang is guilty of extreme negligence, at worst, he is guilty of outrightly faking results. Either way, he has definitely gotten a black-eye. He may recover, just like Nobel laureate David Baltimore did after his black-eye, or he may not. Only time will tell. --C S (Talk) 01:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, because in the end it does come down to "Hwang lied" or "Hwang falsified data", because the alternative is to excuse or even support scientific misconduct. Ethics and logic are clear on the matter, he has already admitted to enough to leave him a nasty record, and the fact that there is rampant cheating in America doesn't somehow ameliorate the situation or endorse what Hwang did. Defending what he did is apologetics, which in philosophical terms is in the same category as whitewashing, rhetoric, or even being just plain deceptive. --Atrahasis 06:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my comments. I am not here to defend Hwang, but merely to put his actions into a broader context for those interested in the causes and forces involved in this situation. As I said above, "scientists are supposed to hold themselves to higher standards". I don't excuse or support scientific misconduct nor do I suggest others do. As I said, in the best case scenario, he has suffered a damaging blow to his credibility, even if ultimately he is seen to be negligent instead of a fraud. --C S (Talk) 06:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I understood your comments, they were essentially apologetic and accused everybody of being ignorant, and made a dubious ethical comparison to what you alleged they do in America, implying that country is some kind of base standard for everybody else when it comes to science. --Atrahasis 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't accuse "everybody of being ignorant". I said those that are pinning Hwang's actions on the supposed cheating culture of Korea are "ignorant of scientific culture". I gave famous examples to show that serious scientific misconduct occurs elsewhere, including in Europe and the U.S. This demonstrated that blaming the "cheating culture of Korea" for what has occurred is overly simplistic and shows lack of knowledge of the long history of scientific misconduct. That latter, by definition, is ignorance. Thanks for all the wiki-links and creating the entry on "dubious", but I am fluent in English and can use a dictionary if it is really needed. --C S (Talk) 22:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably the worst case of scientific misconduct in recent years is the case of Jan_Hendrik_Schön. Nature ended up retracting seven papers by him and Science retracted eight papers. I don't see how anybody familiar with his case (and all the others I mentioned before) would conclude that somehow this Hwang situation is indicative of a cheating culture, e.g. you asked rhetorically above "Because if the people there [at Seoul National University] can cheat like Hwang did, how symptomatic is it for the rest of the universities in Korea and of the academic culture in that country in general?" Nobody took Schon's misconduct as a sign of a cheating culture at Bell Labs, his place of employment. --C S (Talk) 22:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Logically, I don't see why anyone who brings up the idea of and great examples of cheating in American and European science, as you did, would have an objection to the idea that there could also be a similar cheating culture in Korea, whether it's in science or in business...unless of course one is patriotic or pro-Korea in some way. --Atrahasis 00:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As you say, I must not have such an objection, logically speaking. I mistook your rant above as something specific to Korea. If you were merely saying that this situation was caused by the prevalence of the cheating culture in science internationally, then of course, I wouldn't have bothered writing at all. --C S (Talk) 00:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My observations were directly specific to Korea's culture of cheating, and I did have the tone that it was probably worse than what you find at universities in the West. However you tried to whitewash this by spreading the blame, which logically doesn't diminish blame to Korea, unless of course one is ethically corrupt and used to thinking that it's OK to do wrong as long as everybody else is doing it. --Atrahasis 14:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I was scratching my head over how I could have misunderstood you! Looking over everthing you wrote, I find different instances of what may have confused me. For example, "Compare this with Western universities who will mercilessly expell any student who cheats, with no debate or discussion. If this culture of cheating is lived by Korean students, I have no doubt it is also lived by the teachers as well, even the ones at the prestigious Seoul National." This would give the careless reader (such as myself) the impression that you were doing a contrasting of situations in the "Western" world with Korea. Well, anyway, glad to hear you don't disagree with anything I wrote. --C S (Talk) 01:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

To help alleviate any further confusion you may have, I did indeed say in what I thought were pretty clear terms that I think the cheating in academia in Korea is worse than it is in the West. Like I said before, you took exception to this and tried to whitewash it. My view does have the virtue though that someone else here who actually knows something about Korea agreed with me. --Atrahasis 14:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You say cheating in Korea is worse than it is "in the West". I say no, it's just indicative of a widespread problem, give reasons and examples. You accuse me of apologetics, whitewashing, etc. Hm, then you oh-so-subtly accuse me of being "ethically corrupt". Interesting. I guess since you wrote all that stuff on the Korean pride page, it's now absolutely clear (beyond a doubt) where you're coming from. --C S (Talk) 21:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the cheating in Korea is probably worse than it is in the West at least as far as acadmeics is concerned, imo, and the Hwang scandal though it may not be able to indicate an average level of cheating it is indicative that a cheating culture to some extent does exist. But you'll notice that I never put any of that in the actual article, this is all reflection on the matter on my part, and yes I do relaize it bothers you. --Atrahasis 03:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to take my word for it, you can see what other people, even Koreans themselves, have to say on the matter...and the fact is they are saying what I am saying. They point out the dishonest academic culture in Korea as well as the effect of pride.

The final domino to fall will be "Korean Pride," when Koreans fully confront Hwang's fraud.

But in the words of Joseph Steinberg, "South Koreans have to learn to . . . replace pride . . . [with] confidence. "

How do they do that? Cho Se-mi suggests that (among other things) Koreans should "pursue excellence." I'd add that they should strive to be honest in, e.g., their pursuit of a university degree, where honesty would entail actually doing the work required rather than plagiarizing so much. The problem lies not just in academics, of course, but also in the Korean business world, whose level of dishonesty foreigners constantly complain about.

I also think that Korea needs to develop a culture of discussion, and that would entail a flattening of the hierarchical social system to enable juniors to openly question their seniors.

But that will take a while.

posted by Horace Jeffery Hodges

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/

This is actually a link on Wikipedia's Hwang Woo Suk article. --Atrahasis 04:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why you needed to bring up the matter of "abolute truth"--all I was referring to was Roh's insincerity. Anyway, Roh's insincerity or sincerity isn't directly proportional to Hwang's guilt. Roh's testimony against Hwang wasn't what implicated Hwang--it was the questions raised by "PD Su-cheop" which (presumably) triggered a group of scientists from BRIC (Biological Research Information Center), who in turn published questionable aspects of the Science article (relevant, scientific facts). BRIC provided the actual scientific proof, and it was the pressure from the media and the public, together with the holes that BRIC was poking in Hwang's Science article, that forced Hwang to admit that he had used falsified data in the article.

You're incorrect about that...it was in fact Roh's testimony that was the main trigger that forced Hwang to answer to what he did. "PD Su-Cheop" was silenced and taken off the air. The other Hwang critics were villified and ignored. Roh, on the other hand, was the head of the Mizmedi hospital and more or less a part of the team and a personal acquaintance of Hwang, which made him hard to ignore. Personal judgements of his sincerity or lack thereof aside, his claims alone were like a ton of bricks on Hwang's head. --Atrahasis 03:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you are. I do know what happened to PD Su-cheop, which is why I said: "presumably". Despite what had happened publicly to the show, there was a minority of people who didn't take the bait. I was guessing that the scientists of BRIC were part of that minority. It's not unreasonable to think that the show was what first directed their attention to the article. Despite Roh's position, Hwang was far more popular. If anything, people listened and were more sympathetic to him. It was only when it became impossible (for Hwang) to deny the truth (because of the actual scientific facts) that people started to suspect Hwang. I doubt that Roh's words would have had much clout if there hadn't been so much overwhelming proof.

It's illogical to think that the average person had actual savvy of the "overwhelming proof" that you're mentioning, because it remains to this day more or less specialist knowledge. "PD Su-Cheop" may have gotten the ball rolling, but what was needed to convince the general public of Hwang's deception could only be a confession by a close confidant and someone integral to the operation, hence Rho, because a layman and the public in general rely a lot on authorites telling them what is what. Rho, being a specialist, no doubt went to Hwang after he saw the "PD Su-Cheop" show or was made aware of its points, and it was at this time that Hwang confesed to him that it was all a sham and tried to convince Rho to continue to go along with it. We know this much based on Rho's timeline and testimony. Rho made the right decision to come forward at this point, and he probably told Hwang he would do so, which is what accounts for the follow-up press conference by Hwang minutes after Rho's on that day. Had Hwang not thought Rho's confession would be the straw that would break the camel's back he wouldn't have bothered to come forward and wiley his way out as immediately as he did. --Atrahasis 13:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Rho's confession would have been invalid without any proof to back it up. Yes, it was a form of trigger--and I retract any of my previous statements which might have implied otherwise. However, my main point remains the same: the emotion (whatever it was) in Rho's confession was not the keystone.

Concerning your love of "logic", which simply overfloweth... Inductive reasoning has been in vogue since the 1600s... to start with fact: most of the major Korean news channels ran at least one informative program that simplified/explained the technology behind Hwang's work in easy-to-understand language. 221.140.17.39 13:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC) xxcerise@yahoo.com

And this is relevant to our discussion...how? --Atrahasis 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

For more insight into this, check out "The Cheating Culture" review

The Cheating Culture is a book by david Callahan that describes the culture of cheating in America, which may shed a lot of light on the Hwang phenomenon. The points he makes are:

The level of the public's trust is low to the point of being "poisonous". Throughout his book, he states that cynical attitudes and lack of trust in others produce cheating. For example, one expecting to be "screwed" by others is more likely to cheat others to compensate.

If that's true, this says a lot about the level of public trust in Korea, that people expect others to screw or cheat them, which is not surprising for the very capitalist culture of Seoul.

Response: You are using faulty logic. Please do not confuse correlation with relation. You cannot even dream to peg Korea's social atmosphere simply by watching the development of a news story (in this case, Dr. Hwang) You make three flawed assumptions; 1) Callahan's book is legit 2) Callahan's conclusions can be applied to non-American societies; and 3) The case of Dr. Hwang is applicable to Callahan's theories. To say that "this says a lot about the level of public trust in Korea" is an incredible leap of logic which is unacceptable. I do not disagree that there probably are social factors unique to Korea which added fuel to Dr. Hwang's decisions, but I wholeheartidly disagree with invoking Callahan in this situation.

You're free to disagree, but your total rejection that there cannot be any similarities or parallels or appropriate applications of Callahan's ideas in this case is in itself inherently illogical. My statements however have the virtue that I started with a caveat, which careful logical theorizing should start with. --Atrahasis 05:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Members of higher socio-economic groups, such as the wealthy bankers who profit from the credit card industry, frequently victimize members of lower socio-economic groups.

Quite relevant in the Hwang case, who had to have maintained strict control over the members of his team and even his colleagues, regardless of what would happen to them if the cat ever got out of the bag.

Response: Again, how do you know this? Are you assuming that everyone was pressured by Hwang? No willing co-conspirators? No unknowing accomplicies? Were they all of lower socio-economic groups? Please stop leaping to conclusions for the sake of drawing comparisons.

How does anyone "know" anything? In the case of human relations and society, you can very often deduce things by knowing people and their psychologies well, but to do this you have to be socially adept and savvy. Such logical deduction is the basis for crime investigation, historical exegesis, mentalism, psychological therapy, translation of ancient text and one can even say human communication in general. --Atrahasis 05:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The 1980s and '90s were characterized by an emphasis on self-interest, maintaining the individualism and anticonformism of the 1960s but shedding the community-oriented ideals of social responsibility and personal integrity.

Since Hwang has admitted to lying about at least two seperate issues of the case, he has pretty much shed social responsibility and personal integrity.

Yes, Dr. Hwang has behaved unbelievably irresponsibly, but you are comparing the general social mood of an entire nation in two decades, with the acts of a single individual. You are comparing a forest with a tree.

What I beleive is the Hwang case is symptomatic of a greater problem in Korean academia, a not unreasonable assumption and one that at least has the virtue of being substantiated by a lot of anecdotal evidence. --Atrahasis 05:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

American society has a "schizophrenic personality": it tends to cyclically alternate between a spirit of self-interest, and an attitude of communal interest. The last period of such vulgar self-interest, according to Callahan, was the American 1920s.

Which raises the question of which phase is Korea in right now, if applicable, and if it's the self-interest phase, what consequences can the country expect? If teh Great Depression followed America's self-interest phase, that doesn't bode well for any country in a similar situation. --Atrahasis 16:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: Why must Korea follow the phases of America? Korean history has distinctly NOT mirrored the development of American history. On that point, why should any non-American society be pegged within the "phases of America?" Korean society is somewhat different from America's, and it cannot be simplified into either a period of self-interest nor a period of communal interest. In fact, American history can't be simplified like that either.

Like I said, you should reflect on the meaning of a caveat. --Atrahasis 05:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that Callahan's theory (or what you present of it) is flawed. You state that the last period of vulgar self-interest was in the American 1920s, but what about the 80s, as stated above? Furthermore, was it simply a culture of self-interest that led to the Great Depression? Surely there were other factors.

I simply do not think that this exercise in comparing Dr. Hwang's acts with Callahan's theory has any fruit at all. If you truly wish to do an analysis on Korean society and its history, perhaps you should turn your attentions elsewhere instead.

LOL This wasn't an essay, it was some comments in passing. Lighten up. --Atrahasis 08:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Samsung involved with MizMedi?

I think Samsung's involvement with MizMedi is unfounded, partly based on rumours (see this article in Korean). Until someone comes up with confirmed facts, I think it's better to remove the subsection which deals with this allegation. noirum 14:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

삼성그룹 구조조정본부 관계자 역시 "인터넷에 떠돌고 있다는 삼성 배후설을 보고 기가 막힐 정도"라며 "사실 관계가 전혀 맞지 않고, 삼성과 직접 관련돼 있지도 않다"고 밝혔다. 그는 이어 "사실이 아닌 악의적인 루머에 대해 대응할 가치를 느끼지 못한다"면서 "우리도 황우석 교수의 줄기세포 기술을 믿고 싶다"고 말했다.

Imo, the speaker here denies the rumors that Samsung will "kill" Hwang (which is a ludicrous rumor in the extreme), but he doesn't say that there won't be some kind of action taken against Hwang. Also, when he says Samsung has "no relationship with" and is "not directly related to", is he speaking of Mizmedi hospital or the rumors that Samsung wants to kill Hwang? The context here can be read either way. --Atrahasis 15:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Samsung is a huge company with multiple branches not perfectly controlled by its leaders. It deals with practically everything in South Korea to the degree that Microsoft deals with everthing in computer software. However, I have yet to see an evidence that Samsung backed MizMedi. There may be an indirect support, for example, a Samsung investment firm may be backing another investment fund which support another company that funded MizMedi, but this hardly qualifies as an involvement. Also, it is possible that someone who works at Samsung may have personally backed MizMedi out of friendship which is quite important in Korean business. But this still isn't what you can call an "involvment". -- Revth 05:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Hwang Scandal and its propagation by "Korean pride"

It struck me that there entires in Wikipedia for "gay pride", "black pride", and even "white pride", but none for "Korean pride" which I (and no doubt many others) believe is a real phenomenon that explains much of the dynamics involved in Korean society. In relation to the Hwang scandal, Korean pride was what blinded a lot of the people, inlcuding the big Korean companies, to the possibility that Hwang's research was fake. On the one hand you had the truth-seeker minority (the young scientists and investigative reporters who dared to examine Hwang's work closely) and on the other hand you had the pro-Hwang majority (the bulk of the population and the big companies) who wanted to believe Hwang and who responded with vehemence to anyone who criticized him. "PD Su-Cheop" for example was villified for his report and the big sponsor comanies pulled their support from the show, accompanied by an apology from the network...and on what grounds? That there were actually Koreans who were bringing up convincing information that Hwang's research was fake. This amounts to no less than a tacit desire by the majority of Koreans that they desired glory even if it meant they had to cover up the truth. This is a kind of vanity which Wikipedia defines as "the excessive belief in one's own abilities". At worst it cn also be called a kind ofnarcissism, which Wikipedia defines as "a pattern of thinking and behaving in adolescence and adulthood, which involves infatuation and obsession with one's self to the exclusion of others". Not that self-respect is bad, but as far as Korean pride is concerned, it is a kind of extraverted pride that is not really different than something like white pride which believes in the inherent superiority of oneself or one's race over others. The issue of Korean pride is also a valid complaint by foreigners who deal in the academic and business worlds in Korea. If others wish to add their thoughts to this line of thinking, please feel free. --Atrahasis 16:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting that you've been accusing me (not too subtly) of some kind of bias, when clearly you have more then enough POV for all of us. In any case, I've listed your article on Korean pride on AFD. ==C S (Talk) 21:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I knew you would. --Atrahasis 03:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The article on Korean pride has survived your nomination for deletion and has now expanded into quite a professional and in-depth article...you should drop by and take a look. --Atrahasis 13:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Give it a rest idiots. This is a debate not worth debating.

Year OverWikification problem

This article suffers severely from overwikification of years and dates. At least only the first mention of a year/date should be wikified, with other statements of the same yaar/date being normal text. and of course, some people think (i more or less agree), that all years should be unwikified. Iwill try to correct this when i have more time, unless someone else wants to do the weeding out first Bwithh 16:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture of Fusion?

The picture "Egg (ova) and cell being "fused" during somatic cell nuclear transfer" appears to me to show just an oocyte with its nucleus and nucleolus, typically seen during IVF micromanipulation. I do not see a somatic cell, nor that it is being "fused". Ekem 18:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yikes what a mistake, some sorry i am just an undergraduate chemist, i have updated the image and better precised its caption (now fixed), if not right, please feel free to modify caption as you wish.HappyApple 21:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

There are too many I'd say, they get in the way of the text. Or maybe they just aren't laid out well. It seems fine around Further controversy and Hwang's response, but above and below it's very cramped. I don't feel confident enough to start removing a some, but maybe someone else does? For instance, I don't think we need three pictures of women donating eggs. --Falcorian 19:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is the highest number and density of pictures I've seen in a regular wikipedia article (i.e. excluding experimental pages which attempt to be collections of images and whatnot) Bwithh 20:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

the image of a rally in the section "South Korea's response to controversies" the legend below the image says it is in support of Hwang but the image file summary says it is against him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.43.20 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Resignation

Someone should probably work into the article that he's resigned. [2] Oberiko 20:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Cull and Notice of Copyright problems

I just removed numerous images in the hopes of making the page less cluttered. I chose what I thought were the least interesting pictures, or pictures which already repeated what another picture portrayed. For instance, you don't really need 4 pictures of Hwang and the media or at press conferences, or two pictures of him with the "cloning" program dogs or three or four pictures of Korean women supporting the project. Probably further images could be removed. Or reinstate some images if you really think it appropriate. Also - note that many or most of the pictures are improperly sourced and have been uploaded with incorrect copyright fair use notices, and may in fact violate copyright of e.g. especially Reuters and the photo agencies it buys images from. Reuters news photos are not intended purely to "promote" the company - they're either a commercial product of Reuters, or a commercial product of a photography agency which Reuters buys commercial news images from Bwithh 21:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Image clipping vs 14' inch monitors

I see many images has been taken out from the article by ridiculous comments such as "Boring", image clipping, un apropiate tagging, what for?, nvm. Image clipping might be caused after some monitors dont scale sizes properly or monitor size is bigger, hence allows more space for the reader, hence images are adjusted so clipping malfunction appears. HappyApple 22:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This article used to have a ridiculous number of images before I culled some of them ("more boring" is not a ridiculous criteria when trying to judge e.g. which of 4 different images of Hwang talking to reporters to remove. Each image represents the same thing, choosing the more boring to remove is a judgement call but how else to differentiate between 4 images of the same thing?. The article is again being cluttered as other images are added (why do you want so many pictures of Hwang talking to reporters? one press conference shot is pretty much like another). Inappropriate tagging is also a serious issue as when commercial images are misued it exposes Wikipedia to possible antagonism or even legal action from the companies which own the images that have been misappropriated. Image size and layout should be done with the average person's browser and screen size in mind. The goal is not to spam as many images as possible into the article. It's rather to create a elegant layout. Bwithh 13:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?.. a ridiculous number of images?... what i was trying to do is to illustrate the article better and to give readers a better idea how the events were developing, if you got an image clipping is not my problem, why dont you ask others?, if so, i dont think this is enough "excuse" to blow up all pictures or most of them, about innapropiate tagging, that issue now it was solved, and i will try to dont have that mistake again but i advise you to read forget all the rules article featured on wikipedia, and is supported by Jimbo Wales. HappyApple 21:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Before I began editing out images (which I also politely added an explanatory note about and indicated that people should reinstate images they thought worthwhile), there were 22 images] on the article page - including 5 which were just straight portraits of Hwang; 4 of Hwang meeting the press or in press conferences + 1 of Hwang giving a seminar +1 of a press conference pose for lawmakers without Hwang; 3 of Korean women supporting Hwang's project; 2 of Hwang with "cloning" program dogs. In comparison, the photography page has 7 images and the Leonardo da Vinci page has 15, though note that all 15 represent entirely different things (there see to be two portraits of Da Vinci, but the second is of actually one of Plato based on Da Vinci's likeness) and that the page layout is very sane and uncluttered. I'm sure a Wikipedia without any rules whatsoever (although actually the "no rules" page doesnt say what you think it says) would be fun, if short-lived. Bwithh 22:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I cant deny you taken out some images politely, but arguments you used were focused on your criteria which certainly falls under pov status, according to your self explanatory note you removed images based on "boring" and "clipping" issues; ok, i tend to accept for a second clipping was an apropiate criteria for removal, but how about boring?, do you think this is right or fair?, according to this, i can remove the image from Leonardo's portrait or his drawings because i believe they are boring?[3].., i dont think so. As i said on my previous statement, its time to stop this nosense pov's about doctor hwang, as on Da Vinci's page, now , not all images are about the same thing, each of them gives readers a visual concept about how events were developing, what lab techniques were used, rallies supporting him, and the real status of doctor hwang according to media. But, come' on, excess of images doesnt mean all have to be removed and prosecuted of copyright issue, i admit copyright is important, i fixed it, but, working on free encyclopedia is about to be open minded, patience, sanity, and none of them i purposely objected. HappyApple 23:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What is his actual name?!

Is it Woo-Suk Hwang (as reported in Science) or Hwang Woo-Suk as now reported in other popular media? Was it changed because Woo-Suk Hwang sounds hilarious to a speaker of English or is it his actual name?--Deglr6328 03:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

In a person's name, Koreans put the family name first, followed by the given name (in this instance, Hwang is the family name). Wikipedians generally follow Korean naming convention when referring to Koreans, with some exceptions like Syngman Rhee. --noirum 04:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

His name should be spelled Hwang Wu-Seok if we're to observe the precise international spelling rules, but ever since he got famous, English news agencies have gone with the simpler spelling of "Suk" which makes poeople want to pronounce it as "Sook" which is incorrect. I'm not sure how the man himself prefers to Romanize his name though, but I can tell you that if he actually spells it as Hwang Woo Suk that this is the old-fashioned way of doing it, which is typical of his generation. The proper way to refer to his name is with the family name of Hwang first, because that is the new convention amongst English speakers who have gotten more used to the idea that the family name comes first in Asian names, which ironically is what should have been done from the beginning. Exmples are Roh Myu Hyeon, Kim Dae Jung, Kim Young Sam, and even Chinese names like Zhang Ziamin, all of which correctly place teh family name first. --Atrahasis 08:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Forget all the rules

"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia. Our rules serve as a flexible framework to support that purpose, but if rules make you nervous and depressed, then simply use common sense as you go about working on the encyclopedia." taken from Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, I believe is important to edit this article hence its a current event and so on, but please stop deleting or removing images, by saying, "Boring", or POV's, hey what we are doing here is an article based on information we have from the press so its time to stop being too stingy or selfish, and to have less reverting issues.HappyApple 21:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You think copyright violation and putting in as many images as possible in a page is common sense? Also did you actually read that whole "Ignore all the rules page"? It doesn't actually support your perspective.

Since I'm now bizarrely being accused of being stingy and selfish, I'll just abandon this page to your personal whims.

Bwithh 21:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey i am not giving a miss interpretation of the rules above, i am just quoting proposal made upon consensus by wikipedians, did i said "i am accussing you..."?, this is your thinking and you have stated right there below my comment, what i tried to say about was wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and its common to have mistakes, as to make edits on article is not always perfect, hey we are humans we can have mistakes or not?, as i have said adove, i am NOT against copyright, but i believe images are very valuable for an article because they help to have a visual concept or a better representation of what's going on about something, "An image worths than a thousand words...". HappyApple 23:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and an image is worth thousands of dollars in damages to Wikipedia if a court rules we have violated copyright. As I stated on your talk page, please either remove most of the images and leave some important ones, or I will summarily delete most of them anyway! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Images with dubious fairuse claims

First, I have added this GFDL image on cloning to Cloning, and made this blank version that could be adapted by an artist more skilled than myself to replace two of the copyright images on this article.

Second, I have tagged some of the other copyrighted images as PUIdisputed or PUInonfree, as I doubt the fair use rationale that is claimed for them. My opinion is that there are too many straight copies of copyrighted images here, but as I am not familiar with the fair use culture on en:, I will not tag anymore here. Be aware that such images may possibly be removed by someone else in the future, and it would seem sensible to work at obtaining free images in their stead. -Wikibob 17:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use for Image:Cloning-diagram.PNG

The image Cloning-diagram.PNG is being linked here; though the picture is originally copyright I (HappyApple) feel it is covered by fair use because:

1. it is a low resolution copy from Dorling Kindersley.  ;
2. it will be used for educational purposes
3. the image adds significantly information to the article because it explains in detailed way what is involved to doctor's lab technique.--HappyApple 18:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I fail to see why there should be a cloning diagram in the article about Hwang. Shouldn't whoever interested in the subject just click over to an article about cloning? Uly 06:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Online ova donations

This section (Online ova donations) is rather badly written. It contains statements that aren't clear, such as "two weeks ago". Also, it really seems to be boardering on NPOV, with some information that doesn't really seem to fit. I was tempted to just remove it, but I think it may have some value... Any thoughts? --Falcorian 07:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The original version of online ova donations has been corrected, and adjusted. Yes it has value for the article because gives to readers a substancial information regarding on how doctor's supporters began taking massive demonstrations of supporting Hwang's research. HappyApple 19:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

It doesn't look too good at the moment. I might see if Netoholic can assist here... - Ta bu shi da yu 06:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed fraudster category

Removed fraudster category, no criminal conviction.--FloNight 12:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bravo!, very good decision, i support it :) --HappyApple 01:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article

I think the article should be reorganized to end with the latest developments. The response to controversies either needs to receive more content or the conclusions that the research was faked should be conclude the article. What do others think? Ghormax

photoshop

does anyone know if attempts were made to photoshop the pictures to lessen suspicion?

Comments by scientists that they have "no clue what Hwang was thinking" ~ My personal answer to this

I have seen several reporters on the big networks interviewing reputable scientists and asking them what Hwang was thinking, and the scientists answer that they simply have no clue. But if you understand Korean society though, the answer is clear: There were two big influences or factors involved, the first being a culture of cheating in academia in Korea and national pride. I define the cheating culture in Korean acadmeia as plagiarizing English or foreign papers and translating them into Korean and putting one's name on it and submitting something like that for one's Master's or Doctoral thesis. This involves a minimal amount of work, and if the paper is obscure or foreign enough, chances are very good that it will escape detection as plagiarism. There is also the matter of lax rules about cheating on tests or papers at Korean universities, with cases being resolved amicably if enough bribery and nicety is shown to the professors by the cheaters. All of this produces academics who don't do actual work (or in many cases can't because they simply do not have the actual know-how) and who end up relying on assistants or others to do the actual work while they give lectures on what they do know...all a convincing illusion, really. The other factor is national pride, which the wiki article on Korean pride explains in more detail, but basically it is the desire to see Korea obtain prizes, recognition, respect, and even dominance in a world where Korea's former enemies or competitors like Japan have such accolades. --Atrahasis 14:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the lax attitude towards cheating--i.e., the tendency to put results above process.

About nationalistic pride-- hmm, to say right out that that was the reason why Hwang cheated--that's a bit of a jump. What is definitely true is that national pride was what initially blinded many Koreans to Hwang's lies. However, to attribute nationalistic pride to Hwang's actions is assuming too much. Who knows what Hwang was thinking? As a scientist, did he truly believe that he would be able to trick other scientists? P.S. I think you meant "nationalistic" too--or no?

People cheat for greed or pride or because they are desperate and simply can't afford to lose, but what is amazing about the Hwang scandal is that it was so brazen and that he expected to get away with it when he really didn't have a chance...this points to some kind of delusion, which no doubt was fostered by the endemic culture of cheating in academia there. In other words, he was probably used to cheating so much that he fooled himself into thinking he could get away with it. --Atrahasis 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

plagiarizing English or foreign papers and translating them into Korean and putting one's name on it and submitting something like that for one's Master's or Doctoral thesis. This involves a minimal amount of work, and if the paper is obscure or foreign enough, chances are very good that it will escape detection as plagiarism.

Is it true? -222.4.16.15 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

a little attention from the NY Times - birthdate

There is a New York Times article that comments that this article is more up to date than the relevant Brittanica one, but then notes that EB says he was born in 1953, while we said 1952. The BBC says 1953 too, and I've changed the article accordingly. - BanyanTree 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hwang's official birthdate is December 15, 1952 in lunar calendar, which is January 29, 1953 in the Gregorian calendar. It seems BBC's calculation is based on that Gregorian calculation. Although we have the Gregorian conversion, I think it's right to use his "official" birthdate. - noirum 04:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, can we get a further explanation of this in the early life section? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The lunar calendar does not name years like "1952" or name months like "December", so the statement "Hwang's official birthdate is December 15, 1952 in lunar calendar" makes no sense to me and should be rewritten. My guess is that what's meant is that Hwang's age is officially computed by 虛歲 ("virtual age"), which is about a year more than the amount of time the person has lived since birth. In any case, the day on which Hwang was born should be documented correctly in some calendar system (which 虛歲 is not). Can someone please clarify? --單中杰 08:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur, I think... there is no reason to use any date other than the Gregorian, although some reference to Sino-Korean practices of age-reckoning might be pertinent. When people say things like "December 15, 1952 in the lunar calendar" they usually mean "the 15th day of the 12th lunar month of the Year XX (whatever 1952-1953 was)." -- but however it's expressed, I don't think that information would add anything to the article. -- Visviva 08:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the evidence, I'm convinced the article was just confused, and changed the date to 1953. Sorry I forgot to log in first. --Dylan Thurston 08:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Older Koreans of Hwang's generation know their birthdays as computed by the lunar calendar, so if Dec 15 has been quoted I'd bet that's his lunar birthday. It might seem strange to Westerners that although modern Korea uses the Western Gregorian calendar for everyday business, the birthdays of older peoples are still the lunar date...which means many of these older Koreans quite possibly do not know their exact birthday by the western calendar. Strange but true. --Atrahasis 12:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dylan, but changing the year of birth to 1953 with birthdate intact does not solve the problem. I don't know about 虛歲 by the way, but Koreans calculate date using normal digits, like, 2006 nyeon(year) 1 wol (month) 3 il (day), which goes the same for the lunar calendar. Anyway, this is an article in Korean that specifies Hwang's birthdate in both Gregorian and lunar calendar. - noirum 13:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does verifyable not "truth". Please don't change the birthday without a better source than the one currently given. The New York Times says the Britannica says this date. Personal knowledge is not verifyable. And this is the english language wikipedia so english sources are desired. WAS 4.250 14:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Britannica delivered the correct date of Hwang's birth, when virtually ALL of South Korean media shows Hwang's birthdate with the year 1952. But I don't want to argue about it, although my opinion is that the NYT didn't meant to indicate the birthdate on EB is more correct than the one on Wikipedia. Anyway, this is an article in Korea Times with Hwang's Gregorian birthdate. - noirum 15:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The source you quote says "Hwang was born on Jan. 29, 1953". Can anyone provide more sources in English, so we can get a feel for who to believe? Or if you are confident Korea Times is right on this, go ahead and replace the date and the source with the one you just supplied. I don't know, myself, how reliable Korea Times is on this or even in general; I'm sure others reading this know more than I ever could about that. 4.250.132.240 17:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Jan 1953 date has to be the correct one, because it is a month after the Dec 1952 date, which is a typical comversion from lunar to Gregorian. --Atrahasis 18:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking up a few more sources, I'm more confused. It should be noted that the BBC link I added to start this section has an interview of Hwang in which he states he was born in 1953, though he doesn't give a date. Please feel free to add more to dates.

Sources stating 15 December 1952

• Los Angeles Times
• Channel News Asia
• A Japanese language page listing people born on this day

Sources stating 29 January 1953

• Chinese language - but I can read the "1953/01/29" next to the characters for "go out" and "life"
• The Korea Times

Sources stating 15 December 1953

• Encyclopedia Brittanica, assuming the NY Times is telling the truth
• The Korean Academy of Sciences and Technology

I don't know what to make of this. Clearly there is some misinformation being propagated across some fairly reputable sources, but it beats me which it is. It may be best to go with the nuclear option of making a footnote ref from the birthdate explaining that sources disagree. - BanyanTree 00:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a parsimonious explanation of the above. According to a lunar-solar calendar converter, the 29th of January 1953 was also the 15th day of the 12th lunar month for the preceding year. Thus:

• Sources stating "Dec. 15 1952" are rendering the entire lunar date into Western terminology without explanation. This is a silly thing to do, but it is a widespread practice on this (Eastern) side of the world.
• Sources stating "Jan. 29 1953" are simply giving the solar calendar date, as one would expect.
• Sources stating "Dec. 15 1953" are confused, and understandably so.

Personally, I think it's best to use the solar date (Jan. 29 1953) with an explanatory footnote. -- Visviva 00:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This is also supported by various Korean sources (for some reason the calendrical nuances are always left out in translation)... see for instance this article from the Segye Ilbo: [4]. Can someone write that footnote? I'm a little short on time right now, but this needs to be fixed up. -- Visviva 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it and putting January 29 as the birthdate in the lead. Give me a bit. - BanyanTree 01:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put up the drafted footnote. Have at it. - BanyanTree 01:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see the issue settled. Good work! - noirum 04:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Great job! Thanks. -- Visviva 08:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you all know: I told the author of the Times article about the footnote, and he was pretty impressed :-) Good work BanyanTree and others! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Culling images

I'm about to pull most of the fair use images, they are clearly out of control. I'm asking the community: which ones should we keep? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Images removed from the article and a compromise to extinguish flames

Fair use doctrine on wikipedia requires, to precise sources and so on, i did this with all images posted on Hwang's article, but this rationale use is looked frown.

I was warned by User:Ta bu shi da yu to remove most of them or, they will be surely speedily deleted by him, (despite his request was some sort of "unpolite" and almost aggresive, and i quote: "I will be forced to remove all of them and delete the images."[5]

I decided to agree, first, excesive number of images may disrupt the article clarity and will lose perspective for readers. Also friendlier editors with experience on solving disputes and serving as mediators such as User:Wgfinley suggested this to me.

Second: Fair use can be claimed for some , and not all of them.

Third, Yikes!, he is some sort of administrator i better change my mind or maybe he will bann me or something like that .. nvm. Geez i dont know why i said this, anyways.

In a way to extinguish flames and to give the article to fit quality standards as the initial contribuitor of those images, i am proceeding with the removal of the following photos/diagram.

1. Removed Image:Doctor-hwang-1990s.PNG
   1. Reason: It has not yet been confirmed if it really comes from 1990s, whether the quality and description put on the source tends to suggest that.
   2. Other reasons: Probably irrelevant.
2. Removed Image:Dr-hwang-seminar.jpg
   1. Reason: Despite this image states according to fair use rationale, is focused to show to the general public, how doctor's life was before his "resignation", is removed due is not free, and probably irrelevant, doctor hwang was a "celebrity" at the time, inherently give lectures was part of his work.
3. Removed Image:cloning-diagram.PNG
   1. Reason: Was accused of copyright infringment and wikipedia policy says it has to be taken out from articles until dispute is solved.
4. Removed Image:Cloning-cell.jpg
   1. Reason: It was accurate to move footage of cloning cell to Somatic cell nuclear transfer article instead posting on Hwang's article because the article tends to be more about his life despite my wish to be focused on his work. The original photo from Nature (from cloning cell) was replaced with another from german institute with a friendlier copyright for wikipedia some hours later in that article. The photo on Hwang's article was replaced with Hwang while conducting somatic cell nuclear transfer technique at SNU lab in 2000s.
5. Removed Image:Korean-line-up.jpg
   1. Reason: Despite this image was posted in the article because it showed an event of historical nature held to support hwang's work after he resigned all his posts at world stem cell hub and thousands of south korean woman hand over korea's national flower, it was taken out because is not free, and is already under dubious fair use claim, plus two images (different) show already the flower.
6. Removed Image:Dr-hwang-korea-slogan.PNG
   1. Reason: While this images is intended to show readers, Hwang was a celebrity or some sort of celebrity to koreans at the time, is removed to avoid this page be accused of "vanity page". Second reason, is not free.

If the community disagrees, please i urge to fellow wikipedians to post your oppinions.--HappyApple 04:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I appeared a bit impolite, but you didn't appear to be listening to others, and at the end of the day we don't want to be legally liable for copyright infringement. I appreciate you considering removing some of the images from the article. While fairuse is OK, it's most definitely frowned upon. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a good start, and well done to Ta bu shi da yu for being persistent. I think though that there are still images in this article which may violate copyright. There are images which are sourced to commercial news and newsphoto agencies but are labelled as "press release images" in their wiki image copyright info. Unfortunately images and content from commercial news sources are not automatically press release material - in fact most of the images and content will not be. Consequently, the images are incorrectly labelled for copyright purposes. A press release image would be one which is released by the public/media relations department of an institution - it is not any image published in the media. Please see Wikipedia:Publicity_photos . Bwithh 19:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Warriors against Hwang's nationalist supporters

This section is quite ridiculously named. I'd have changed it myself except I realized that I can't think of a good one. I thought "rally against..." and "movements against..." might suggest too much of an organized effort, which doesn't seem to be the case. Any suggestions? Uly 07:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless you're going to fight negative nationalism in general, the whole concept seems rather silly. What are the supposed "warriors" meant to do anyhow? You fight Hwang's lies with truth (scientific proof). Anyway, the majority's stance on the issue is condemnation. Imo Hwang is already a has-been. Unless he manages to somehow make it as a politician. It's not a completely ridiculous idea--he definitely has connections. =P

The Hwang affair has definitely been an occassion for many South Koreans to question both the nature and the intensity of Korean nationalism. Many people supported him solely because he was Koreanand refused to believe the reports and it was those people who got PD Notebook canceled the first time. Even today there are people who insist that it his critics who have done more harm. Choi Jang-jip said "Government policies to support and finance Hwang's work merged with nationalism and patriotism to create a quasi-fascist environment that suppressed criticism".[6] I don't think I am the one to write it but this article should have some mention of the discussion this episode has provoked.--ThreeAnswers 18:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nature of Wikipedia tested by this article

Anyone else notice that this article has become if not a primary source then a primary resource about the Hwang scandal? I predict that Asia-oriented articles in the future will further test the boundaries of Wikipedia as a primary source/resource because of the very significant fact that the West is still very largely ignorant about things Asian, and for it to be presented in English as it has been done here will require specialists and knowledgable people contributing their direct knowledge into articles like these, because a place like this is simply the most convenient way for people to meet, share, and inform. It's the only logical way to make up for what I sometimes call the "veil of secrecy" of things Asian. --Atrahasis 17:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

While it is admirable, it is still not the focus of this site to provide original research. All information must be sourced, anything else may need to be removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

While OR may not be the focus of this site, this has proved that things similar to OR are unavoidable at times when the Asian veil of secrecy is encountered. It also points out the OR rule makes a dubious assumption: That everything worth knowing has been written about or able to be found in English, which if you think about it is illogical and very ethnocentric. --Atrahasis 18:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

OR refers to the creation of "new" knowledge. It is not OR when the documented sources are in a language other than English. — J3ff 10:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

But the "veil of secrecy" of things Asian will often confuse people into thinking something is OR or "new knowledge", because it may really bother them that they just can't get an English source or even a written source for X item. If Wikipedia continues to introduce Asia-centric articles as Asia becomes more prominient in world affairs, we'll see more and more instances of Wikipedia in some cases being the first or among the primary sources for a given item, because the veil is being lifted here even where English sources may not readily exist...but we shouldn't let that bother us. --Atrahasis 11:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to this, if you're saying that this is an opportunity for Wikipedia to be one of the first sources to mention or confirm "veil of secrecy," you'll have to know that Wikipedia's purpose is meant to be a secondary source and has no ambition nor interest to become a primary source. Furthermore, regardless of what you believe about Original Research, we must still follow Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, that includes preventing or deleting any materials considered as Original Research despite what it seems "illogical and very ethnocentric" to you. You have to be aware that Wikipedia isn't the only source of information, so despite the fact that Wikipedia is limited to written, published, and verified information from credible sources, other sources of information, such as research institutions and universities are not. There, original research is being conducted, reviewed, and published to expand knowledge and discoveries for the benefit of the world. Wikipedia merely explains what it is in a manner for average people like us could understand :) --BirdKr 16:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

confusing sentence

"He also called her a Joe Walsh, though it is not her food that he eats at work." What does this mean? It sounds nonsensical, and I couldn't find any references through google.Chamaca.cosmica 15:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems the paragraph is just a leftover from previous vandalism. I'm correcting it. noirum 17:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

new controversy

Those who can read korean - there is a new controversy and probably a complete explanation about the issue coming up. Someone please write a section about the most recent controversy. Reference 'naver.com' and search keyword 황우석의 진실/ hwang woo suk eui jinsil/ the truth about hwang woo seok —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.137.12.110 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I read the Update section. There are no sources whatsoever. In addition, the writing is far from neutral; it is heavily biased in favor of Dr. Hwang.Erik-the-red

I'm deleting the Update section unless someone can post sources.Erik-the-red

Article Need for Neutrality

I want to again mention the lack of neutrality in the article. Wikipedia standards require that biographical entries maintain strict neutrality. I see how someone created a controversy section to move the "fraud" allegations into a "Controversy" section, but the article still needs much more in the way of improvement. Firstly, the article's discussion on Hwang Woo Suk's career at Seoul National University repeatedly asserts that all of his research claims are unverified, based only on "media events and photo ops," an allegation that is unsourced. All of this should be moved to the controversy section, and this aspect of the article must only document his accomplishments (whether actual or contrived). If one wants to address fraud, lack of verification, or ethical and legal issues, they should do so separately. Secondly, the article is strongly biased. The article has COMPLETELY neglected to address Hwang Woo Suk's side of the issue. The Western perspective portrayed here only focuses on Hwang Woo Suk's claims and fraudulency, and is not representative of the deep investigation that was conducted in Korea - an investigation that has led to many suspicions about Hwang Woo Suk's colleagues (who may have deliberately cheated him) and to much support regarding his innocence. Finally, it is imperative for everyone to acknowledge and accept that Hwang Woo Suk has numerous proven accomplishments regarding cloning and stem cell research that are truly admirable. Everyone needs to know that only his recent controversy on the cloning issue has caused unwarranted skepticism about his previous work. LifeScience 06:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)