Talk:The Asia Institute

Hi ConcernedVancouverite. Presently The Asia Institute redirects to the Solbridge International School of Business, but it should not do so because the two are unrelated. The former is located in downtown Seoul in Jongno, whereas the other is located in a city called Daejeon, which is quite far away. The article I put together reflects that evidence. There are also other issues that came at me like an avalanche, like the comment that the logo is inappropriate, but, I think we should deal with the issue step-by-step. I don't get that. It is the logo of the institute; other policy think tanks put theirs, too, such at Hoover Institution at Stanford and others.

Can you remove that merger? Snowfalcon cu (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Both the original article written by the apparent director [1], and the previous consensus Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Asia_Institute, seem to suggest that they are/were related. Perhaps Pasternach had a falling out with the school and left with his institute. But I can not find any reliable source coverage to suggest that. Can you? Perhaps you should invite him back to comment, as he will likely have some insight as to what happened, and he does have a previous record of editing Wikipedia to make sure everything is presented as he wishes about his activities. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I cannot find any sources that shows about the process of it moving from one place to another. Will continue to sniff around. I think it is a good idea to get in contact with him and ask him directly about this, because he best knows what is done at that institute and its history. Now, will you break the merger? The only way he can see the new article, comment about it, comment on that logo, and look at the sources I put up, is only if he can see that new article. If he only sees the merger to SolBridge, he will probably ignore my email and move on; but, I put in a lot of effort to raise its visibility. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not have the authority to change a consensus. Wikipedia operates on consensus. So unless there is some evidence that the consensus is wrong then it stays this way until a new consensus is reached. Poking around it seems it definitely has had past affiliation though based on this somewhat questionable source: [2]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. You can refer him to this link [3], if you want him to see your edits. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that was in 2009. The present address on the website is http://www.asia-institute.org/contact-info/

Take a look at the last page of their brochure: http://www.asia-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Asia-INstitute-Brochure.pdf Is it enough to inform the consensus on a change? (I sent him an email to info@asianinstitute) Snowfalcon cu (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear ConcernedVancouverite, I deeply appreciate your concern for the status of the Asia Institute and your interest in an accurate representation. Let me first give you the history of the Asia Institute and we can then discuss what form of documentation would be appropriate to effectively assert the present status of the Asia Institute. As we were featured just yesterday on YTN News in Korea and we have a series of publications, and are pending for an ISBN number, it is in everyone's interest that we set the record straight. The following information may be sensitive and I do not wish to have it featured on the actual entry. I will give it to you in full in the interest of establishing trust.

Emanuel Pastreich (myself) was the founder and continues to be the director of the Asia Institute. The Asia Institute was founded in June of 2007 when Pastreich was serving as a professor at Solbridge International School of Business in Daejeon. The Asia Institute was run initially under the auspices of SolBridge, although many of our events had nothing to do with SolBridge and there was a consensus at SolBridge that Asia Institute was not appropriate to a business school in that it focuses on public policy, the environment and technology. In June of 2010 I was informed by the President of SolBridge, John Endicott and Vice President Sangjik Jung that Solbridge had decided they were not interested in running or working with the Asia Institute. They did not not make any claims on the name in any sense since then.

Solbridge took down all links to Asia Institute in June of 2010. From that date on, Pastreich ran the Asia Institute as an association without any status as a corporation or NGO. He continues to conduct research, hold seminars and make videos.

Pastreich left Solbridge in February of 2011 and moved to Kyung Hee University in Seoul, where he teaches today. From July of 2011, Pastreich started to hold Asia Institute events together with the noted Korean NGO GCS (Global Common Society) http://www.gcs-ngo.org/. Asia Institute reached an agreement in August of 2012 to function as a subsidiary of GCS and that is Asia Institute's current status. It is a unit of GCS which is a Korean NGO founded in 1975. This video from yesterday's news clearly shows an Asia Institute event, complete with the Asia Institute sign being held at GCS:

http://www.ytn.co.kr/_ln/0101_201211030510297393.

We have asked for a link from GCS website to Asia Institute's website asia-institute.org and we will have one, although we do not have one yet.

Solbridge's website features an Institute of Asian Business

http://www.solbridge.ac.kr/index.php/faculty-a-research/institute-of-asian-business

which has absolutely no relationship with the Asia Institute. Just take a look at the difference should be clear.

The Asia Institute has established itself as a significant research institute in Korea and its publications, its appearance in the Korean media, its continued seminar series in Seoul make it clear that it deserves recognition. Solbridge was in a sense the home of Asia Institute from June 2007-July 2010, but since then there has been no relationship whatsoever.

Do let us know what might be an appropriate manner in which to document this transition. Perhaps it would be sufficient to have a link from the GCS website?

Thanks again for your interest,

Emanuel Pastreich

Epastreich (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it odd that Pastreich writes in the third person about himself. I also think you may want to take down that post, as he asked that it not be shared in public, and a talk page is quite public. I don't think it is appropriate to violate his request for privacy by posting his correspondence in such a public place. But in any case, if we take the claims here at face value the redirect should go to an article for Global Common Society instead of the former, and content about the history with Solbridge should be in the article. But Global Common Society does not seem to have a Wikipedia entry, so perhaps that is also not currently notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, and as such unless there is significant reliable source coverage for Global Common Society, it appears WP:TOOSOON to have any listing for Asia Institute, as it is a subsidiary of a non-notable organization. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. This note was written prior to another user (epastreich) refactoring the above comments. The original ones I responded to are here: [4]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't catch at the top that he did not want this email to be made public. It is also not lost on me that the present letter is modified, too. Nevertheless, this is the response and things are now clearer. My next task will be to research online in Korean and English what is the Global Common Society and determine if I can write a page about it if GC is notable Snowfalcon cu (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• Actually I recant that. Writing a GC page is unnecessary -- Hershey owns companies that have their own Wiki pages, Volvo is owned by Zhejiang Geely, but has its own page, is not under Zhejiang Geely. I still vote to have that page merger unbroken.Snowfalcon cu (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus to change the result of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Asia_Institute. Please do not break the merger until such a new consensus is reached. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, how do we start a new consensus? Please retain the page I updated so users have something on which to base a conversation. The reverted page, factually incorrect, must have a comparison. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Does a new consensus building effort start on this talk page, or on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Asia_Institute? Snowfalcon cu (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The edits you are proposing are able to be viewed here [5]. You can try to build a consensus here. The best way to build consensus for it having a stand alone article is to suggest reliable third party sources that establish the notability of the institute. The version you have provided does not yet do that in my humble opinion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! What do I do to get this consensus moving along? Nothing has happened in months. I freshly edited the page, but cannot update the deleted version only. Sitting around watching the merger not break is becoming mundane, anti-intellectual. Would like to get a discussion going. Thanks. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As noted immediately above this, the best way to build consensus for it having a stand alone article is to suggest reliable third party sources that establish the notability of the institute. You can provide those sources here on this talk page for discussion and consensus building. Alternatively you can work on a new article in your own individual sandbox and then when it is ready for others to see bring it for discussion here. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)