Talk:Yonsei

Untitled

Also see discussion in Talk:Yonsei/move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to main article Yonsei (Occidentalist (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)).

Requested move

Yonsei (disambiguation) → Yonsei — To revert undiscussed page move. As there is no agreement on what is the primary topic (see Talk:Yonsei), the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title without "(disambiguation)" per WP:DABNAME. — Kusunose 16:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nominator. --Kusunose 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support *sigh*, procedure over procedure. The primary topic of Yonsei has not been decided so far, so it would be better for Yonsei to remain as "dab" page.--Caspian blue 16:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  Oppose. As an alternative, because the topics are so unrelated, I propose simple delete of the Yonsei (disambiguation) page.

The whole matter has become ridiculously over blown and is part of Caspian blue's general MO on any topic relating to any Japanese-Korean relationship or editors.

Yonsei, as a singular word, is the word and name for the fourth generation (not just of migrants). It is not used in the singular to refer to a hospital (which does not actually official use the word in its title), nor a university. (Occidentalist (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).

Note Long-term disruptive and block-evading sockpuppeter, User:Lucyintheskywithdada's comment who has been indef. blocked again.--Caspian blue 22:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Example of Yonsei without university being used to refer to the university: [1] "The new ETP partners are high level universities such as Science Po (Paris); the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS, University of London), Bocconi School of Management (Milan) and Yonsei (Seoul)..." Taemyr (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In that incident, the list of universities is prefaced by the word university and so from an editorial point of view, to repeat it 4 or 5 times would be redundant. Its not a good example, although I don't doubt faculty and alumni do call it "Yonsei".

In that case, I think we should default to example set by Oxford] where the singular word is the main topic and even its University is relegated to a disambiguation page.

I restate though, to even discuss this is to miss the point of this exercise on Caspian blue's behalf (of which I include all the messy page moves etc). It is a deliberate provocation, whether conscious or unconscious, and part of their Korea-Japan "issue". As such, it should be ignored and reads left to benefit from the excellent search engine provided. (--Occidentalist (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).

Note Long-term disruptive and block-evading sockpuppeter, User:Lucyintheskywithdada's comment who has been indef. blocked again.--Caspian blue 22:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it shows simply that there is cases where the University part of the name is dropped. That is all it takes for inclusion in the DAB.

As for what topic is primary; it's not whether or not it is a singular word or not. Oxford as a singular word often refer to the university. What is important is if one meaning is far more common than all others. In the case of Oxford the city is deemed to be such a far more common meaning. A different outcome was found in the case of Cornell.

We have heard a lot of accusations of bad faith. However, the motives of the editors are not germane in considering what the primary topic of Yonsei is. So far no argument have been given to substantiate the claim that the generation is a more common meaning, in contrast Caspian have shown that if we choose to go by google then the university should be chosen as the primary topic.diff Taemyr (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• OpposeSupport: I change my position in response to AndrewHowse's reasoning. As I understand it, AndrewHowse counsels that it's probably best to follow pre-established procedures which have been worked out in advance by earlier consensus; and in due course, more intractable issues might appear more amenable to resolution. With at least one significant element of the dispute set aside because of this step-by-step approach, a way to ameliorate further difficulties might present itself. --Tenmei (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

I can hardly follow the thread of changes which have been wrought in the past month ... and the chain of edit histories are so mangled that I doubt anyone else can manage it easily. No. The correct thing to do here is nothing -- to leave this as is with a page protection which puts page moves outside the array of weapons which can be used in this battlefield. FACT: Caspian blue knew or should have known that moving Yonsei to create a disambiguation page was controversial, but it was done without regard to the consequences ... and here we are. Is this to be construed as a personal attack which then serves as a smokescreen to obscure the root question? I don't that is going to work becuase the phrase "knew or should have known" is presented as declaratory and alternative rather than accusatory and express. Without the distraction of a smokescreen indignation or outrage -- and all the heady drama implied, the modest question becomes whether it is possible to re-discover the state of Yonsei diff when Caspian blue initiated the chain of moves which brings us to where we are today? In order for that first step to be valid -- and for the house-of-cards erected upon that foundation to be valid, an objective analysis will have to conclude that everything about this page on November 6th supports both an assumed claim that the action Caspian blue took was above reproach and that the reasons given in the edit history were also minor and valid and non-controversial: m (moved Yonsei to Yonsei (Japanese term): Making a dab page. This is NOT a well-known PRIMARY topic in English unlike "nisei" and "sansei" found in dictionaries and web search.) To conclude that this specific edit was minor, valid, and non-controversial is a stretch; but even if, hypothetically, we were to assume all of of that ... there still remains one other unanswered question: We would have to accept that Caspian blue was blissfully unaware that an interested editor was involved in the process of working on the article .... NO. Not possible ... that is beyond the scope of WP:AGF. In short, a review of the edit histories on November 6th will show that this was a poor beginning for an adventure which has careened of control. To pretend otherwise is to exacerbate things further. WP:TL;DR? If anyone thinks this explanatory comment is too long, I can only suggest that it was much harder to follow and survive the serial evolutions and developments as they unfolded. --Tenmei (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support No consensus appears likely for any page to be the primary topic. If at some future date some of the contenders are deleted, leaving only one potential primary topic, then we'll deal with it at that time. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support moving Yonsei (disambiguation) to Yonsei. An ambiguous title such as Yonsei should be a disambiguation page, because it is Yonsei that will accumulate incoming links needing disambiguation and the task of disambiguating them is made vastly more difficult if Yonsei also has "correct" incoming links that refer to one topic by that name. --Una Smith (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

A priori, it seems to me that Taemyr's analysis of the disputed issues and contending points-of-view at Talk:Yonsei#Primary Topic is generally congruent with the comment posted above by AndrewHowse, e.g., "Which page that should be at Yonsei is governed by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC." This approach is appealing. I need more time to figure out how to articulate my misgivings or to dismiss them as unhelpful.

A crucial step forward seems potentially acceptable to all participants in the discussion threads -- that the disambiguation page will be renamed without objection as Yonsei (disambiguation), similar to Harvard (disambiguation) and Yale (disambiguation) ... which now reveals a distilled locus of dispute, i.e.,

Whether a Japanese word will be permitted to be given prominence and precedence over a Korean word. In other words, the dispute becomes about whether Yonsei has to be a redirect to Yonsei University because it is more important than a Japanese emigrant group.

I think this formulation of the problem goes to what has always been Caspian blue's unspoken objectives.

I have misgivings about the concepts of "precedence" and "more important" in this context; and any sentence construction which incorporates these terms becomes a loaded question. --Tenmei (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Kusunose's proposal

What Kusunose proposes is eminently reasonable, unremarkable, routine ... when viewed through the narrow focus of mere days; but in the broader panorama across months and years in which Wikipedia administrators have wrongly allowed articles to become mired in a too-long series of hapless battlefields with "dimensions of Korean and Japanese nationalism", a terse "no" is a more constructive and hopeful response. This is one of those odd moments in which "no" actually becomes a step towards creating something more workable.

In my view, all further moves need to stop while other crucial issues are thrashed out.

ASIDE:Ultimately, I would expect to see Yonsei (disambiguation) as the ultimate outcome; therefore, I see no harm in leaving matters as they are.

A more profitable use of time would be invested in giving close scrutiny to one of the elements Caspian blue added to embellish that disambiguation page which opened the door to the Comedy of Errors as it has since played out:

• Yonsei Severance Hospital

Caspian blue's redirect appears to be a made-up term, a petty legerdemain, a bit of filler which is inconsistent with WP:V. See, e.g.,

• Talk:Yonsei Severance Hospital?
• Talk:Severance Hospital?

If this is demonstrably not a hoax, then I would be pleased to acknowledge it ; but, when Caspian blue refused to respond to my inquiries, and then eventually responded only in Korean, my misgivings were not minimized, mitigated, ameliorated.

It appears that Caspian blue, who is arguing (on behalf of others perhaps?) in support of the proposition that Yonsei University is an exemplar of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, has over-reached. If it turns out that a contrived hoax was deemed necessary to strengthen a weak argument ..., then there is something wrong which can only be illuminated by examining this minor tempest-in-a-teapot for what it is or whatever it's supposed to be. The conventional tendency to extend all benefits of doubt to Caspian blue's point-of-view would not apply. and Caspian blue will have made a very persuasive argument that the alternative -- the Nikkei emigrants/immigrants are an exemplar of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Tenmei (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue has provided 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)
• "`Stomach Cancer Recovery 17 Times Higher if Detected Early`". The Dong-a Ilbo. NOVEMBER 11, 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

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: If this is demonstrably not a hoax, then I would be pleased to acknowledge it. --Tenmei (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion or not of Yonsei Severance Hospital on the dab page seems completely irrelevant with respect to what is the primary topic.

It is not an issue about a Japanese word vs. a Korean word. The issue is about the English word. Caspian blue argues that google search results indicate that the university is a far more common referent for the term. I have not yet seen any counter arguments to this. Taemyr (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In my view, the last four sentences are crisply stated, clearly related, and arguably valid; but I haven't yet figured out how to use them as a platform from which to construct the a tentative step. --Tenmei (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. As an outsider to this discussion so far, it appears to me that "Yonsei" and "Yonsei University" are two separate topics, and therefore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not relevant. Unless Yonsei University is commonly referred to as just "Yonsei" (is it?) and could plausibly use that single word as the title for its article, I don't see a problem with using "Yonsei" for the article about Japanese emigrant descendents, with an appropriate hatnote to Yonsei (disambiguation) for other articles whose titles also include the word. Station1 (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think usually when you have "something University" you will get frequent use of just the something to refer to the university. Consider the question "where did you study?". One would expect just "Yonsei" to be a plausible answer since the University part is implied. Taemyr (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Primary Topic

The unwelcome, precipitous and untimely page move by Occadentalist caused a disruption of the talk page threads. In my view, the most important thread was succinctly summarized by Taemyr who wrote:

Which page that should be at Yonsei is governed by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In short, if a meaning of Yonsei can be considered as being far more common than any other then that meaning should be selected as the primary topic.

I have not seen any argument that the term Yonsei in English is more often used about fourth generation Japanese immigrants than it is about a Korean university or medical journal. In the absence of such arguments WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is fairly clear that no primary topic should be selected. -- Taemyr (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC) ...diff

I do not yet understand "primary topic." Someone needs to explain it to me so that I can better participate in the discussion which has unfolded in this venue. Failing that, I may require answers to questions that are not as well understood as I would like. --Tenmei (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example: London is about London, England; London (disambiguation) has a very long list of other Londons. The prominence of London, England makes this reasonable, but on the other hand it also impedes disambiguating the incoming links. London is sure to attract many links that do not intend London, England. Anyway, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline, not a policy. At this time Yonsei has only 10 incoming mainspace links waiting to be disambiguated. Incoming links will continue to be created, so period disambiguation is needed. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links for how. Yonsei University has over 100 links. If Yonsei University were moved to Yonsei, Yonsei would still accumulate incoming links needing disambiguation but those links would be lost among the 100+ links pertaining to Yonsei University. Disambiguating incoming links often is not feasible unless the page with the ambiguous title (here Yonsei) is the disambiguation page. That is why there is a trend toward moving disambiguation pages to the ambiguous title. The proposal to move Yonsei (disambiguation) to Yonsei is just one of several:

Move disambiguation page to ambiguous title:

• Anne Hathaway (disambiguation) → Anne Hathaway —(Discuss)
• Harris (disambiguation) → Harris —(Discuss)
• Ireland (disambiguation) → Ireland —(Discuss)
• Yonsei (disambiguation) → Yonsei —(Discuss)

Prepare to move disambiguation page to ambiguous title:

• Matthew Williams → Matthew J. Williams —(Discuss)

--Una Smith (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Una Smith -- I felt that your earlier posting was uncommonly persuasive at diff; which isn't to say that the arguments developed below were unimportant. I guess I simply need time to ponder this for a while. In due course, I expect that I'll more fully grasp its ramifications? --Tenmei (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tenmei. I guess my POV is that the question of disambiguation page vs topic page is orthogonal to the question of which topic page is primary. I am dismayed by the endless discussions over which page is primary, overlooking the value of using a disambiguation page instead of any topic page. Even when there is a clear winner, those discussions tend to produce hurt feelings. But my POV is the result spending many hours on disambiguating links. --Una Smith (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Argument: Yonsei is arguably a "Primary topic"

It appears to me that Yonsei University and Yosei are two distinct and unrelated topics. It would appear that little or no confusion is caused by the fact that each topic exists simultaneously and in unrelated contexts. At best, I would have understood these two subjects as something of an "apples-and-oranges" array for which no common denominator is easily discernible -- nor would I have grasped intuitively that there was a pressing need for a "primary topic" to help distinguish between them. In other words, this controversy is deemed of interest only in with Wikipedia context. This "problem" does not arise on its own.

In my view, there is no need "to count the number of angels on the head of a pin" or to go through any other similarly extended contortions in order to resolve what is essentially a non-issue. This is resolved quite simply by returning to the status quo ante of November 6th in which there were two unrelated articles linked only by reciprocal hatnotes at the top of each page -- Yonsei University and Yonsei are able to exist independently, side-by-side, with no need for controversy or competition.

Focus of dispute

I present a distilled locus of dispute, i.e.,

Whether a Japanese word will be permitted to be given prominence and precedence over a Korean word. In other words, the dispute becomes about whether Yonsei has to be a redirect to Yonsei University because it is more important than a Japanese emigrant group.

I think this formulation of the problem goes to what has always been Caspian blue's unspoken objectives. An cursory review Caspian blue's disputes at WP:AN/I and edits which have been less prominently developed lends credence to this unwelcome proposition. Wishing that this were not so does little to make it diminish as an insoluble dilemma.

Taemyr posits a more diplomatic proposition: "It is not an issue about a Japanese word vs. a Korean word. The issue is about the English word."

Undoubtedly Taemyr describes an hortatory ideal, but Caspian blue's edit history across an array of articles does not provide support for the notion that this is what the prime mover of this dispute believes or seeks to achieve.

Expressed in different words, the quandry Taemyr proposes is not demonstrable across the span of Caspian blue's edits. [If it is necessary to present diffs which inform this conclusory statement, I will invest in follow-up with further research, but I am understandably unwilling to do so without some prodding.]

Setting aside the intractable inconvenience of harsh reality and deciding to adopt Taemyr's articulation is a wholesome step away from controversy: If we tentatively accept Taemyr's formulation as axiomatic, then the artificial "primary topic" is revealed in a context of corollaries. Yonsei is then identifiable as an essential and integral extension of a set of Japanese terms which has already been accepted and integrated into the corpus of the English language.

Philology

Yonsei should be accepted as the Wikipedia primary topic for philological reasons. The term evolves naturally out of the following context:

Immigrant -- plural and singular

• (in English) Issei: 1st generation immigrant, Japanese-born non-citizen/alien in a new nation-state and non-Japanese culture
• (in English) Nisei: 2nd generation immigrant, child of Japanese-born immigrants, American- or Canadian-born citizen in a new nation-state and non-Japanese culture
• (in English) Sansei: 3rd generation immigrant, grandchild of Japanese-born immigrants, American- or Canadian-born citizen of American- or Canadian-born citizens in a non-Japanese nation-state and non-Japanese culture
• (in English) Yonsei: 4th generation immigrant, great-grandchild of Japanese-born immigrants, American- or Canadian-born citizen of American- or Canadian-born citizens who were themselves progeny of Americans or Canadians

Emigrant

• (in English) Issei: 1st generation emigrant, Japanese-born emigrant living and working in a non-Japanese cultural millieu
• (in English) Nisei: 2nd generation child of Japanese emigrant living and working in a non-Japanese national cultural millieu
• (in English) Sansei: 3rd generation emigrant grand-child of Japanese emigrant living and working in a non-Japanese cultural millieu
• (in English) Yonsei:4th generation emigrant great-grandchild of Japanese emigrant living and working in a non-Japanese cultural millieu

Politics

Yonsei should be accepted as the Wikipedia primary topic for political reasons. Politics consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and refers to the regulation of a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.

The US and Canadian governments officially apologized to the Issei, Nisei and Sansei internees of World War II; and significant reparations payments were made to survivors in 1988. This came about largely as the consequence of political and legal actions undertaken by the Sansei who construed the wartime events as violations of civil rights rather than merely racial discrimination. Those who pushed for this acknowledgement of past wrongs were specifically motivated, in part, to affect the progeny of the internees, i.e., the Yonsei.

Sociology

Yonsei should be accepted as the Wikipedia primary topic for sociological reasons.

The trans-generational labelling is a distinctive feature of Japanese emigrant or Nikkei communities. This noteworthy phenomenon is found in a majority of national Nikkei communities in North and South America; but, curiously, it is not a feature of the way Japanese Britons view themselves. It is less marked in post-War Australia than in North America and in Latin America.

In addition, the official governmental intervention in cross-generational relationships and in the family structures of the Issei, Nisei, and Sansei has been studied as a unique sociological phenomenon. The sociological and psychological sequelae are demonstrably distinct from what has been studied in other immigrant experiences not similarly affected by officially-sanctions disruption. The expectation that Yonsei would be largely unaffected by these phenomenon has been shown to be somewhat inaacurate. The group effects of the extremely active involvement in political and legal activities of the Samsei -- not to mention the surprising extent of their political and legal successes -- have produced unanticipated consequence amongst their children.

The unprecedented publicity surrounding the political and legal successes of the American and Canadian Nikkei have affected the Nikkei in Latin American Nikkei communities. [It is to be inferred (but not yet proven by credible published sources) that in due course, an effect will be noted, studied, and published in credible sources.]

Conclusion: Yonsei is demonstrably a "Primary topic"

For the reasons presented above, Yonsei -- the Japanese generational emigrant term which is commonly used in English-speaking North American countries, in Spanish-speaking Latin American countries, and in Portuguese-speaking Brazil should be understood as a "primary topic".

The presumptive argument that anyone will be confused or unable to locate the Korean university in Seoul -- Yonsei University -- is unavailing. The fact that an internet search for "Yonsei" produces more hits having to do with the university is interesting, but not compelling in this Wikipedia context. --Tenmei (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:PRIME, Yonsei University is a primary topic for Yonsei, period

Dear Tenmei (talk · contribs), That arbitrary conclusion is what you want to believe without plausible arguments. Yonsei generation is only interesting subject to some a few like you, Japanese. Most of my native-English friends don't know about what "yonsei generation" or "Nikkei" means. Therefore, we should present "evidences" for our claim and I did present the evidence from Google search/book/scholar/news. So you should convince people that the Japanese term is prevailing over Yonsei University in real usages of English but you still have kept failing to prove that. You're keeping only resorting to the implausible rhetoric and ramblings. WP:PRIME clearly states three standards to decide a primary topic. According to it, Yonsei University has been proven so. Besides, Nikkei automatically reminds people of the "Japanese stock market", not Japanese diaspora unlike your assertion. You're trying the Japanese term, Yonsei to take a free ride on the Issei and Nissei. Still, the article is not differentiated from Sansei the post generation from WW2 at all. Present your arguments clearly. Funny, how do you prove that the Yonsei generation is "more interesting subject" to general readers? No more nonsense, please? --Caspian blue 22:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue appears to express the view that the points in the argument for Yonsei as a primary topic are not well argued. Indeed, that may be so.

As I explained in the brief posting before this "argument" section, and as I freely admit yet again, I don't really know what an argument in support of a wiki-"primary topic" looks like ... nor have I any but guesses about what factors are to be considered relevant. This should be considered merely an offer, an initial draft, and attempt to step-up to the challenge AndrewHowse, Kusunose, Taemyr and seem to have proposed for what I assumed were good and valid purposes.

As Taemyr acknowledged above, Caspian blue has shown that if we choose to go by Google hits, then Yonsei University may be selected by consensus as the primary topic.

Perhaps a statistical analysis based on Google isn't the sole relevant factor, nor indeed the dispositive factor in a complex situation. My argument, such as it is -- flaws and all -- is not developed from the same foundation as the one Caspian blue puts forward. Indeed, my strategy and logic may prove unpersuasive; but this is demonstrably distinct from "nonsense." In sum, the argument I have presented has sufficient substance to be able to withstand a cursory dismissal, even if it can be shown as needing significant re-writing and improvement. --Tenmei (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Taking the points in the order that they appear;

Choice of use of a dab page is purely an in-wiki concern. It is a way for us to work within the limits of our medium.

When there are only two pages, and a primary topic is agreed upon there is no need for a disambiguation page. That however is not quite the case here. Moving Yonsei (fourth-generation_Nikkei) to Yonsei is explicitly choosing the generation as a primary topic. If the university is selected as primary then Yonsei should redirect to it. If there was only the two pages then there would also in this case be no need for a dab, the university could have a hatnote link to the generation. Unless a primary topic is agreed upon neither solution is good. So use of hatnotes does not alleviate the need to decide wether or not a primary topic exists, nor which meaning is primary.

Even if a primary topic is agreed upon this ignores the hospital and the medical journal. We can do this only if it is the case that they are essentially never referred to solely by "Yonsei". Proving such is impossible, so pursuing such an argument is difficult.

While there can be little doubt that Caspian blue edits from a Korean perspective, his motives for starting the debate is irrelevant.

Your arguments fails to persuade me that the generation should be chosen as a primary topic. Remember that the issue is which whether we can assume that a meaning is far more common than any other.

Your philology argument is essentially a summary of the etymology of the word. There is no relevance here.

Any political reasons for choosing one meaning over the other should be ignored, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Your sociology argument is relevant. It asserts that the nikkei meaning is the most important meaning within certain population groups. However, it does not touch upon what meaning is the most important outside those narrowly defined populations.

So I do not really agree with your assertion that you have shown that the generation is the most important meaning.

Caspian Blue, the three standards you describe are suggested by WP:PRIME as "Tools that may help determine a primary meaning". And it explicitly cautions that these should not be considered as determining factors.

WP:PRIME also states "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

Merging Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) does not cause that meaning of the word to disappear, so the dab page should like whatever page the content is merged into. Preferably by way of the redirect left behind.

Tenmei, as WP:PRIME states, the primary meaning is the one meaning that is by far the most common.

Barring extensive surveys of wikipedia readers(not just the editors), which I doubt anyone would be willing to make, the call that one topic is such will be a subjective one. As such you must write arguments directed at editors who believe that Yonsei refers to the university. And you must write them good enough to convince those editors that the nikkei generation is a more important meaning. If you are now thinking, "but that can not be done", you have arrived at the reason that WP:PRIME states that extended discussion is an indication that no primary meaning should be chosen. Taemyr (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei, If one follows the current accepted guidelines for primary topic, which have been pointed out to you, then your arguments - while cogent, well thought out and well written - do not address the criteria that have been accepted for primary topic. Those of our blue friend appears to address those guidelines more directly. If you take exception with the guidelines themselves, then that should be taken up on the talk pages of the guidelines. Its not "importance," its the amount of reader interest. Unfortunately (or not), we live in a world where the two do not always coincide. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Taemyr and Jwy -- I have no plans to contest consensus decision-making based on the limited data and arguments currently being considered; and this is likely to remain my position regardless of whether consensus reveals that there is a "primary topic" or there is no "primary topic."

As I've explained above, I construe the competing points-of-view as very difficult to compare. If the position I've espoused were to prevail, that would be gratifying. If the arguments I've presented were seen as unpersuasive in relation to a Google-based statistical analysis the failure might be naught but a personal one, fine. In any event, we all recognize that a comprehensive re-evaluation may become timely when the array of available data is seen to be more fully developed. In future, other editors might come to parse the relevant issues differently.

Whatever happens now, this record remains as a solid foundation from which a useful discussion thread can evolve. --Tenmei (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

References

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) 15:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He should have avoided adding the comment about nonsense, in my opinion. But up until that point he is pointing in the right direction: we have worked out the guidelines with some thought. They aren't perfect and not "The Bible," but in this case I think they are reasonable. S/He was perhaps over-passionate in the discussion. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Pages moved

• I have made these moves:
  • Yonsei to Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei), histmerging a cut-and-paste move in the process.
  • Talk:Yonsei (disambiguation) to Talk:Yonsei/move?
  • Yonsei (disambiguation) to Yonsei
  • Talk:Yonsei (disambiguation) to Talk:Yonsei with hatlink pointing to Talk:Yonsei/move?
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So the move tag can go? (John User:Jwy talk) 16:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes -- done. --Tenmei (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• There are about 10 links needing to be disambiguated (see what links here). Would someone here like to disambiguate them? See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done by someone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Some others to consider

If Yonsei University is really one of the most prestigious universities in South Korea, then it is possible that other than the hospital and the medical journal, other organisations and schools attached to it may also be notable enough for their own articles and would belong on this dab page. One example might be the Yonsei Annals[2]. There may be other topics that are unrelated directly to both the university and the generation of Japanese American - for example the Yonsei-Yale Isochrones[3]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Are those topics notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia? If they are (and you are so inclined), create them. If you expect user's to type "Yonsei" to find those articles, add entries for them here. If not, they do not belong on this page.

The article (generally) comes first, then a link here if necessary. This page is just for navigation. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Hong. Of course, there are plenty of "notable" enough organizations and schools affiliated with the university. Those groups are influential to South Korean society. Thank you for bring this up. I'm inclined to create such articles. But well, I'm still thinking why Tenmei (talk · contribs) have tried being irrational as changing the original attention on Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) and Sansei to Yonsei Severance Hospital and others. His intention of causing noises is very disruptive and too transparent. --Caspian blue 23:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Caspian, it is you and your mode of operation that is transparent.

That is the big problem with dealing with Caspian ... if anyone documents what THEY (Caspian blue) do, e.g. create noise as a distraction, they will turn around and use it in their next layer of attack attempting to draw attention away from them.

The prejudicial error in using Google as an arbitrator in a situation like this is that any search for 'Yonsei' will also bring results for 'Yonsei University' etc as a partial search results.

Using it properly, e.g. search for 'Yonsei' minus the word 'university', e.g. [4] provides a far more accurate result for its usage.

Yonsei means yonsei. Yonsei University is Yonsei University. Neither the hospital nor journals were ever called "Yonsei".

The whole debate has been bogus and poisoned and is just part of their (Caspian blue) persistent Japanese-Korean psychosis. -- Occidentalist (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.16.165.249 (talk)