Talk:Karolinska Institute/Archive 1

Origins of logo
How did the logo come about, and why is there a chicken/rooster/hen in it? 128.12.32.199 22:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

pls tell me the adminssion procedure into your uni versitand the comparison of west africa senior secondary examination result with your s

Fair use rationale for Image:Karolinska logo.gif
Image:Karolinska logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin of name
There is no reference given for the claim here that the name of the institute goes back to the soldiers of Carl XII, who reigned 100 years earlier. Seems more reasonable that it was named after King Carl XIII, who was on the throne when it was founded. It seems I have also read or heard that somewhere. Where did that info about the much earlier king's soldiers come from? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

translation of name
1. WP uses common names as found in English language sources. I am therefore not sure that the use of the Swedish name is even correct as the main title--this will need checking. (see WP:COMMON 2. Details about translation in put in the lede sentence confuse the issue. Noone expects a commoly used translated name of an institution to be philologically exact, but rather to read idiomatically in the target language (English in this case). The place for a discussion on the significance of the Swedish incorporated article is as a footnote; it   would be much clearer there  DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should be moved to an English-language title, probably Karolinska Institute as the more direct translation Caroline Institute doesn't appear to be widely used in modern sources. The word "Institutet" simply means "Institute" and it seems odd to use the Swedish word as the title of an article in the English language Wikipedia. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus the proposed title is more common in reliable sources, regardless of the official name/branding. Jenks24 (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Karolinska Institutet → Karolinska Institute – Per the above discussion ("translation of name"), the article should be moved to an English-language title. The word "Institutet" simply means Institute and the name "Karolinska Institute" appears to be common in English language sources. Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Karolinska Institutet uses its original Swedish name as a brand standard for all communications in English, as clearly explained in the Profile guide (page 9, "The name is not to be translated into other languages")  Matasg  00:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per dominant English usage. Doremo (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * irrelevant source, as Google Ngram Viewer only counts publications printed before the year 2008. Karolinska Institutet's brand strategy which regards the usage of only the original name was published in 2014 . Further, Virtual International Authority File, used by world's major libraries (including the Library of Congress), relates to the original name Karolinska Institutet only  Matasg  19:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Swedish institute's "brand strategy" is irrelevant as far as English usage is concerned. Doremo (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support swap per WP:UCRN, Karolinska Institutet becomes a natural . — Sam Sailor 18:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karolinska Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100916195216/http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/results to http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/results

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karolinska Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226092553/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=154377&sid=43908462&con_type=1&d_str=20150217&fc=4 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=154377&sid=43908462&con_type=1&d_str=20150217&fc=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Paolo Macchiarini affair
Shouldn't there be more than a passing reference? Please see the section about the Fallout for Karolinska Institute on the Macchiarini page of Wikipedia, according to which the consequences for the Institute have been huge. News coverage of the scandal (for example in a very recent article in the New York Review of Books) has suggested that KI is facing a major crisis, that it has lost considerable national and international prestige and stature, and that even the credibility of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is being questioned. Shouldn't this crisis be a major part of the article on the KI? Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it should. Let us create it. See RSes in this for starters

https://forbetterscience.com/2018/06/25/karolinska-decides-on-macchiarini-and-jungebluth-papers/#comments Zezen (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest in including material on the Macchiarini scandal on this page. I wish I could help, but I recently came off a 6-month TBAN from editing any medicine-related pages (broadly construed).  Even though I'm no longer under the banning order, I'm generally avoiding any medicine-related editing (except for minor things, like reverting vandalism).  But I'm looking forward to reading your edit of the Karolinska Institute article, which I have on my watchlist. NightHeron (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try soon, after rereading WP policies and risking a similar TBAN myself. See also my recent edit at the Paolo Macchiarini Talk page. While being respectful to WP's goals as an editor, I hope that potential patients will Google and look these up when signing such semi-informed consent forms, based on academic and administrative lies, before their operations.

Move back the so-called Karolinska Institute to Karolinska Institutet
1 / In PubMed and research articles I can find both Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska Institute, but for me it seems that Karolinska Institute is very unusual. The Nobel Prize (English) web page refers to Karolinska Institutet. Which trusted sources were referred to above? 2 / As far as I know, in Swedish Wikipedia there are never translations for company names (eg Virgin Group is not translated to Jungfrugruppen in Swedish Wikipedia). Vame (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Encyclopaedia Britannica is a trusted source. It calls the institute the Karolinska Institute and not the Karolinska Institutet.


 * The difference between articles in Swedish Wikipedia concerning institutes in English-speaking countries and articles in English Wikipedia concerning Swedish institutes on the other hand is, that most Swedes are in command of English, whereas most English-speaking people aren't capable of understanding Swedish. Therefore, it's not necessary to translate the names of institutes in English-speaking countries to Swedish in Swedish Wikipedia. Translating names of Swedish institutes to English in English Wikipedia on the other hand makes sense, as most English-speaking people don't understand Swedish.


 * And if you look at institutes in other than English-speaking countries, such as in e.g. Germany, e.g. the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, it's being called Max Planck-institutet för astronomi and not the Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie in Swedish Wikipedia. So names of institutes in other than English-speaking countries become translated to Swedish in Swedish Wikipedia. --K1812 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the explanation above is strange. What is the difference between names of universities and institutes etc. (including trademarks) and company names (incl. trademarks)? Should English Wikipedia begin to translate company names as well? Volkswagen from German to "Folk's Wagon" or "People's Car" and Volvo from Latin to "I Roll" and Pravda from Russian to "True" (or "Truth"). It will be exciting! Vame (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * University names are commonly translated, not only within Wikipedia. University names cannot be compared to company names, and they are more descriptive in nature than brands like "Volkswagen." The insistence that we as English speakers must refer to the university using its name in a particular foreign/non-English language is quite strange. I don't know of any other university where we don't use the English name here. Should the article on Renmin University of China in the English Wikipedia be moved to 中国人民大学 as well? And King Saud University to جامعة الملك سعود‎, perhaps? --Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * But the difference is that, according to the Entrance sign, the Renmin University in China calls itself Renmin University of China in English and King Saud University according to its Official website calls itself King Saud University in English, but that Karolinska Instutet according to its Official website calls itself Karolinska Institutet in English. Vame (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't always or necessarily use "official" names or the names preferred by the PR people of a particular institution or company; we use WP:COMMONNAMEs, namely the names typically used by (on this project, English-language) third-party reliable sources. It may very well be the case that Karolinska Institute wants to be known under its Swedish name (for some odd reason), but that is not enough. Karolinska Institute appears to be much more common in English language sources than Karolinska Institutet. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. No support for the proposal. Number  5  7  23:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Karolinska Institute → Karolinska Institutet – The correct name of the university is Karolinska Institutet also in English. ViktoriaO (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * — ViktoriaO (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Needs discussion. EB and The Times university ranking both use "Institute". See WP:ENGLISH. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. Reliable English-language sources appear to mostly refer to "Karolinska Institute" or "The Karolinska Institute": see recent articles in e.g. Nature, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The BBC and The THES rankings mentioned above.  News sites referring to "Karolinska Institutet" in English appear to mostly be lightly-rewritten press releases and hence should be given less weight.   I am going to undo your changes to the article since they break various wikilinks, mess up the grammar in places, and put the cart before the horse with respect to the re-naming of the article. Wham2001 (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reading further back in the talk page I see that this has been discussed before (as a requested move in 2017 and informally in 2018), and both times there was a consensus that the article should be at its current title. I think that a successful argument for a move needs to show that the situation has changed since 2017. Wham2001 (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The title should use the WP:COMMONNAME as found in WP:IRS independent reliable sources that WP:USEENGLISH, regardless of what someone thinks is "correct". This has been previously discussed, with no apparent need to reopen the question. —&hairsp;BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and Suggestion: As the actual name of the university only really needs to be mentioned in the article name, lead and infobox, and rarely if at all in the body of the article, what about changing the wording to "the university" throughout the article, in place of "the institute"? Also, it would be useful to have a History section, which can include more detail about its beginnings and naming (did it start as a research institute rather than a university?), and a bit of reorganisation per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
The name of Karolinska Institutet in English IS Karolinska Institutet. Here is the English web site of KI https://ki.se/en The last time I checked an entity, or a university can decide for themselves the name in English? I work at the communications office of KI and was tasked to correct this. Obviously a lot of renowned actors do mis-spell it. KI is also not an institute, it is a university. I believe perhaps people can ask us before they revert changes. We at KI also need to transfer the English page to Karolinska Institutet instead. ViktoriaO (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Viktoria Olausson


 * Please note the following:
 * The Wikipedia policy is that article names should follow the name given the the entity in the majority of English-language sources. Please see this page, which  linked to above.  Obviously the name that KI chooses to use itself is a factor in this, but is not determinative.  If you want the article to be moved you will have to demonstrate that a majority, or at the very least a sizable minority, of English-language reliable sources refer to it as "Karolinska Institutet".
 * Secondly, and more importantly, the fact that you work for KI means that you have a conflict of interest with regard to the article. You need to read and follow the instructions given on this page, which describes how conflicts of interest are dealt with on Wikipedia.  In particular (but please read the instructions in full yourself):
 * You need to declare that you are being paid by KI to edit the article in any relevant talk-page discussion (such as this one) and on your user page.
 * You should avoid editing the article (or other articles related to KI) yourself, and instead propose changes on the article talk page.
 * Finally, you say I believe perhaps people can ask us before they revert changes - this seems to reflect a fundamental misconception about how Wikipedia works. It is not the KI website, and you do not "own" the article.  There's (another) policy about that here.
 * I hope this clear some things up. Best wishes, Wham2001 (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * But the texts are cut and paste from the KI website: which someone was paid to write. So it can be cut and pasted by anyone not working for KI EXCEPT for the name which must be misspelled according to a number of sources you feel apporpriate? Nature for example shows Nature Institute in 3273 träffar while Institutet has 1596 hits so I assume then they would be, according to you, one third not-accurate....ViktoriaO (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)ViktoriaO


 * Thank-you for pointing out that the history section was copied from the KI website. That's obviously an unacceptable violation of KI's copyright.  Nowadays there are automated tools to detect people adding copyright content to Wikipedia articles, but unfortunately historical violations of this kind still remain in many articles.  I've removed the section and tagged the article for revision deletion, which will remove the offending content from public view.  If there are other parts of the article which have been similarly copied please let me know and I will remove them too.I'm not sure that I understand the point that you are making about Nature; some links to the searches you are doing might help. PS. It would be easier to follow this conversation if you didn't start a new section each time you post.  You can add a section below the current text by clicking the "edit this page" link at the top and scrolling down to the bottom of the edit box.  There's some advice on how to edit talk pages here. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I too only saw the earlier discussions above after contesting the move - and it does look as if the decision has been made before, based on Wikipedia practice., rather than trying to put it through as an uncontested technical move, you should have raised a discussion on the talk page by using Template:Requested move. I completely understand your point of view and as a new editor you were not to know this, but as has pointed out above, Wikipedia differs from organisational websites, and organisations and individuals do not own their pages on Wikipedia.  And please see the WP:COI page that Wham2001 has pointed out above - you do need to make that disclosure on your user page using the appropriate template (see WP:DISCLOSE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laterthanyouthink (talk • contribs) 01:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.