Talk:Keio University

This Wikipedia entry
on Keio University contains text which has been simply cut & pasted from the Keio University website. I removed it, but some Wikipedia nazi who is patrolling this site in search of "vandalism" entered the stolen text again... what's the point of copying content from the official Keio website here?

Animal testing
Monument for animals used in testing at Keio University from Animal testing page. There's no mention of it in this article or on the Animal testing page. What is it? 117.207.235.129 (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Rombus

ad copy
The text appears to be taken straight from Keio University's advertizing/marketing literature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.142.68 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

The text says that Keio University is the oldest university in Japan and also in Asia. This is incorrect. The oldest university in Asia is Sungkyunkwan University that was founded in 1398 under the Joseon Dynasty's rule and is ×still in operation in Seoul. If in doubt, please visit Wikipedia's link on Sungkyunkwan University or http://eng.skku.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chfhal (talk • contribs) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But how do you know that Korean did NOT fabricate false history AS USUAL? Nobrag1 (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Time for a limited lock?
This article is being manipulated by anonymous IPs. Frankly, I hardly believe anything it says, now.

I'm just about to change the text reading "It is one of the most prestigious universities in Japan" to what the citation actually says, which is "A leading Japanese university".

Any other takers for restricting edits to established editors? Piano non troppo (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Fukuzawa studied at Brown University?
It is impossible that Fukuzawa studied at Brown University in the manner implied in the text prior to 1858. He was a tudent of Dutch in Osaka prior to moving to Yedo in 1858. In 1860, having just started to learn English, he was part of the Japanese embassy to the US where he would have made notes about the educational system, but the party kept themselves very much to themselves.81.156.193.96 (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

concern
About the ranking in the lead paragraph, the French ranking is obviously unknown related to ARWU by SHJT or THES rankings, so I think that paragraph should be either deleted OR include these ones such as: http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/ARWU2008_C(EN).htm Nobrag1 (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Similarly, another major international ranking ranks Keio as 142nd, I don't think it has the status to be called as "Harvard of Japan" because obviously University of Tokyo is the top university in Japan. (This is regarding the lead paragraph) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobrag1 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

anyone?
thinks this statement "It is one of the most prestigious universities in Japan, similar to one of America's Ivy League institutions. Keio was the only Japanese university Albert Einstein visited when presenting his lecture on the special theory of relativity in 1922. It is the first Japanese university to celebrate its 150th anniversary in 2008. Keio's School of Medicine also has long standing research links with the Harvard Medical School."

is a bit too overrated? Sure Keio is the only JAPANESE university he visitted but I think he visited a lot of other universities too. Nobrag1 (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been criticized for not being 'constructive' however, from his past edition, he calls a Keio a "HARVARD of the Japan" I wonder who is not being constructive. Two major international rankings supports my point as well. Nobrag1 (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keio Univesrity's rank in 2009 THES http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Rankings2009-Top200.html ; 142nd.
 * Keio University's rank in ARWU: http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/ARWU2008_C(EN).htm ; 201-302nd Nobrag1 (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * by claiming Keio as the Harvard of Japan You are making the wikipedia a joke site. Nobrag1 (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of uploading Wataru Osada's picture
He's a prominent figure of current Keio University if anyone agree. Thanks Nobrag1 (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr Wataru has quite high good hit results. Nobrag1 (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Moronic use of rankings
From this article: ''Academic ranking Keio University is widely accepted as one of the premier universities in Japan. The 4ICU [11] ranking classifies Keio as the top university in Japan (2009).''

From the 4ICU website: 4icu.org includes 9,200 Colleges and Universities ranked by web popularity in 200 countries.

Yes, the 4ICU ranks Keio as the top university in Japan for people searching the web about it. FFS people, this is an embarrassing distortion of reality! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Rankings
Users with similar IP addresses consistently edit the article's section on "Academic Ranking" to distort university's position. They emphasize rankings compiled by 4ICU and Webometrics, which do not evaluate quality of education, but web popularity (i.e. how many people visit the university's website). They delete Keio's position in the Academic Ranking of World Universities and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, which are the two most widely used rankings.. I fact checked some of the more obscure rankings, and have discovered that the user misrepresents them. For instance, the source for the Japan Times ranking is actually an article published by the Japan Times, which quotes (without specifying the name) another ranking compiled by cram schools.

I would like the user to use the discussion section to present his views and explain why he consistently edits Keio's ranking in the manner in which he does so. If the person can provide concrete evidence that some academic rankings discriminate against Keio, he should provide sources that present this view, rather than deleting them en masse.--169.232.190.64 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you seem biased against keio. Could you add LSE's position in the Academic Ranking of World Universities to London School of Economics? then you can prove you are not biased and your edits will be welcomed here. LSE ranking is available here.Wikipedian05 (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That is no grounds for deleting sourced material. If you think the Academic Ranking of World Universities is biased against Keio, you should collect evidence and present it in the article in an objective manner. Also, I don't believe that there is one correct ranking; I'm sure each is flawed in its own way. That's why we need to include multiple rankings to provide the bigger picture to readers. --149.142.75.49 (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying ARWU is biased against keio. It is YOU that are biased. Wikipedians must be neutral in wikipedia. London School of Economics does not include ARWU. So if you insist on the inclusion of ARWU, then add LSE's ARWU ranking to London School of Economics. Otherwise you are biased and against wikipedia's policy. If you add LSE's ARWU ranking to London School of Economics, then I will accept your edit in this keio article.--Wikipedian05 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you not only deleted ARWU's ranking, but also distorted Times Higher Education's ranking by deleting Keio's overall position within that list and by focusing on one section of the ranking that grades Keio's positively. You also deleted THE's Asian Universities ranking. Please explain this.

I'm not biased against Keio, I'm against your edits because they distort Keio's rankings by presenting the university in a manner in which it should not be. You are the one who is biased by continuing to focus attention solely on Keio's business school, and on such rankings as 4ICU and Webometrics, which evaluate universities by web presence, instead of academic quality. Many wiki articles on universities include ARWU and THE rankings, including the University of Tokyo. I can't speak for the London School of Economics, but if you are that concerned about that university, why don't you make the edits by yourself? Now if I was to stop you from doing that, then you can make a case that I am biased. Notice that I am not deleting any of the favorable rankings, unless they are unsourced, while you are deleting unfavorable rankings, even though they are sourced. See the difference?--149.142.75.49 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the IP user that added 4ICU and Webometrics. And keio has no business school. (although it has commerce graduate program). Many article are using 4ICU and Webometrics, so your claim make no sense. The reason why i don't add ARWU to LSE article is It is not I that insist on the importance of ARWU. I don't mind whether it is included or not. But you strongly insist on the inclusion of ARWU. Then add it to LSE. Why do you hesitate? If you add it to LSE, then I will add it to this article too. There is no reason for you to hesitate to do it. And how is ARWU unfavorale to keio? 200-300 is a good position. Add LSE's ARWU ranking to London School of Economics then it will be added here.Wikipedian05 (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why you continue to delete/distort THE's rankings (both international and Asian). I am not against deleting 4ICU and Webometrics; I am only including a disclaimer that it evaluates web presence, rather than academic ranking, but you continue to delete it. You also continue to integrate 4ICU and Webometrics rankings with the other academic rankings (i.e. THE), potentially confusing readers that those two are academic rankings.

And what does LSE have to do with anything? If you are so dead set against using ARWU, why don't you delete it from every other university article. Looking at your past contributions, I've seen that you've made edits to the articles on Tokyo University, University of Melbourne, University of Toronto, etc. But they all have ARWU rankings on their articles! Why do you only intend to delete ARWU's rankings from Keio's article, instead of all the other universities you've made edits to before?--149.142.75.49 (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't mind whether it is included or not. Whether it is added or not should depend on the articles and the editors of the articles. Not every article needs to include it. But you insist ARWU should be added to every university article. Then add it to LSE. Then it will be added here too.Wikipedian05 (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm, if you have a problem with the London School of Economics article, then please discuss it on that article's talk page. What is or is not included in that article has no direct relevance with what should or should not be included here. --DAJF (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that ARWU should not be included here. Not every uni article needs to include it. But if he adds it to LSE, then I will accept the inclusion of ARWU here.Wikipedian05 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is why is it your opinion that ARWU should not be included in the article on Keio, when you allowed it to be included in the article on the University of Tokyo, Melbourne, and Toronto? You also still haven't answered why you continue to distort THE's ranking.

And what is up with you telling me Keio has no business school? You just uploaded like 5 different rankings declaring that Keio Business School is the best in Japan.--149.142.75.49 (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why do you think ARWU should be added? It is you that added so you must answer first. And I'm not the IP user who made those edits. I just reverted to his version.Wikipedian05 (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that keio has no independent business school. I think those sources are referring to the entire university as an business school.Wikipedian05 (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah keio has a business school.http://www.kbs.keio.ac.jp/ my misunderstanding.Wikipedian05 (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw my opinion. Feel free to add ARWU and modify some sentences.--Wikipedian05 (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Re your Third Opinion request: I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. In light of the abandonment of this dispute by Wikipedian05, I have removed the Third Opinion Request from the list of pending disputes at the Third Opinion project. Please feel free to re–list it there should the dispute resume or new issues arise. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 16:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

August-September 2010
Why does this IP user(149.142.75.234=149.142.75.229=169.232.190.64=149.142.75.49 and more) ALWAYS delete much information? They are all sourced by reliable sources and there is no reason to delete them. If you have some opinion on them, then post your opinion here and make consensus BEFORE EDITING. If you continue to vandalize this article, you and this article will be blocked.--Wikipedian05 (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedian05, you have already been accused of WikiBullying and of 3RR violation. The consensus was that ARWU would be included, but now users are distorting that ranking by only including Keio's regional standing (Asian), rather than its international. The same goes for THE: users are only including Keio's regional ranking, instead of its international. Users who do not respect this will have their edits automatically reverted, and I will request third party mediation again if the problem continues.

Please include new rankings while not deleting/distorting THE and ARWU's rankings.--149.142.75.234 (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedian05, I have reinstated all sourced material. I have divided rankings by their type, so that readers will not be confused with Keio's academic ranking. My main concern was that users were inflating Keio's academic position by including all sorts of rankings that did not evaluate academic quality with those that did. I'm sure we can agree to this new format.--149.142.75.234 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that this IP user (149.142.75.234=149.142.75.229=169.232.190.64=149.142.75.49 and more) is not biased against Keio. The consensus of the discussion is to only put ARWU to the ranking, not to ALWAYS delete much information. They are all sourced by reliable sources and there is no reason to delete them. I do support Wikipedian05. JFK01 (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Amongst sourced information, please specify what I deleted when making such accusations. I have included all sourced rankings in my edits. I have divided rankings into sub-sections based on what they evaluate because people are swamping rankings that do not evaluate academic quality (i.e. web popularity, proportion of alumni who are CEOs) with those that do. Rankings such as 4ICU and Webometrics, which Keio scored very high on, evaluate universities by measuring how many people visit their websites through search engines. The study by École des Mines de Paris also evaluates universities based on the proportion of alumni who are CEOs in the world's largest companies. These are not academic rankings, and should not take precedence to THE/ARWU/QS rankings in a section about academic ranking. Also, when they are listed under the section of academic rankings, readers need to be notified of the fact that such rankings don't evaluate academic quality.

As for the "deletions" I have made, I am reverting edits that distort academic rankings. I am responding to each one as follows:

My edit: The university was ranked 142nd in the world by Times Higher Education World University Rankings (2009). Opposing edit: For 2009, it was ranked 91st in the world for social science by Times Higher Education World University Rankings.

Deleting Keio's overall position in the THE rankings and replacing it with the university's position in one field (the one it scored the best in) is a gross distortion of THE's findings and will confuse readers that Keio's overall academic quality is on par with its quality in the social sciences.

My edit: ''The Academic Ranking of World Universities (2010), which is compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, ranks Keio 201-301 in the world and 23-42 in Asia.  Opposing edit: The Academic Ranking of World Universities (2010), which is compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, ranks Keio 23-42 in Asia .''

ARWU ranks universities on an international level; you cannot just delete Keio's international ranking and leave its regional (Asian) ranking alone. It misleads readers of Keio's overall ranking, while defeating ARWU's purpose.

My edit: ''In its Asian University Ranking (2010), Quacquarelli Symonds also ranked Keio as 23rd in Asia. ''

I notice that this one gets completely deleted. QS rankings are legitimate: they are included in other wiki articles, such as the one for the University of Tokyo, and is actually released in conjunction with THE rankings.

Opposing edit: ''Japan Times mentioned that Keio is No.3 in Japan. ''

I delete this because Japan Times does not rank universities. If you look in the article, Japan Times mentions that Keio is ranked third in Japan by some academic ranking composed by cram schools, but does not specify the name of that ranking. This is hearsay, and is especially vague. Please find out which ranking Japan Times is referring to, and include that in the article.

In responding to my edits, please provide me with your input in regards to the four edits above as they are the ones most disputed. I don't think we can resolve this without addressing that. Also provide any other disagreements, and I promise to address them individually. I look forward to your response. お疲れ様です. --149.142.75.234 (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary to put the latest rank or the overall rank into the Wikipedia. You can see many examples, e.g. - LSE does not put ARWU of the world ranking at all. Note that ARWU ranks LSE at 200-300, recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Economics

- University of Sydney does put only the Asian rank of ARWU, not the world rank at all, and also not the latest year (2009/2010).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Sydney

- The University of Göttingen does not even put the latest rank of Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings 2009 at their 186th position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_G%C3%B6ttingen http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=438

Are they biased to make wikipedia like that?

Let me be clear. I do not say that these examples of mine are wrong, but instead I believe they have already been right, and no need to change because they can represent their data in different ways. But your sickness makes Wikipedia wrong and double standard.

I totally agree with Wikipedian05 and JFK01, that you are really biased to Keio. Maybe, you cannot pass their examination, I am not sure. You just simply change wikipedia to the way you want, and then block others to edit. Very dictator.

And I am sorry, but I want to ask everyone here to strongly condemn this 149.142.75.234 IP user. je bent bevooroordeeld 58.11.48.112 (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So I would suggest to revert to the previous version, but add ARWU ranking which includes its Asian ranking. I believe that is the most neutral way. 58.11.48.112 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Kyoto University, University of Tokyo, Harvard University, and UCLA also use ARWU, QS, and THE rankings. Of course not all wiki articles on universities are going to use them, but certainly many universities do so. I believe that LSE is more the exception, rather than the norm. As for the rankings which are out of date, maybe nobody has bothered to update them? Are you suggesting that we only use the year in which Keio did the best? Also, how many other universities use the rankings published by École des Mines de Paris? Or the one published by 4ICU?

So what's the big deal here? I've incorporated all the sourced rankings into the article, all I'm asking for is that Keio's position in the international rankings (ARWU, QS, THE) be presented the way these rankings were designed to do so (to rank universities on an international scale). Is it really honest, in case of the THE rankings, to only present Keio's evaluation in the social sciences, instead of its overall evaluation?

For the THE ranking, I will agree to include Keio's ranking in the social sciences alongside its overall ranking. 誤解されたら困るから、皆に慶應大学のランキングを客観的に紹介しましょう　（ニコニコ）. --149.142.75.17 (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you use such biased sense, all Harvard, University of Tokyo, UCLA, LSE, University of Göttingen, University of Sydney and every university in the world should include all rankings, such as ICU, École des Mines de Paris, Global University Ranking, Human Resources & Labor Review, ARWU, QS, THE and many more, to their wikipedia as well. You know why all wikipedians do not add all of them up? Simply answer, because some rankings do not give them a very best rank in each. But is it really biased? We do not think so. As I said, we have many ways to represent data or ranking in various different ways. You should understand about this point.

And even though we write some kinds of that, it is not biased agaist wikipedia because we do provide source information about the whole ranking in the references already. When the readers want to see the whole information, they can just go to the references. Again, let me be clear. I think we do not want to blame you, I am sorry for this matter. But we just want wikipedia to be the place where everyone can help, share and learn together in the fairness. So please trust me, it is better to use the previous version. Hope you can understand us. Thank you. 115.87.180.223 (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can give you more examples to support to use the previous version, not this current version.

Look at Peking University, they do not add ranking of École des Mines de Paris because they are ranked at 205th in the world. Instead, wikipedians added only the old ranks (2004-2007 only, not 2008-2009) and only in the field of arts and humanities (not as the overall).

"The Peking University was previously ranked as the 18th (2007 rankings), 10th (2006 rankings), 6th (2005 rankings), and 7th (2004 rankings) best arts and humanities universities in the world."

http://www.ensmp.fr/Actualites/PR/EMP-ranking.html#7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_University

Do you think wikipedians who create Peking University are biased because these rankings gave Peking in a better ranking? We do not think so.

And if you look at University of Tokyo, wikipedians added their rank from École des Mines de Paris which stated that their university is the No.1 in the world. Is the University of Tokyo is biased? We do not think so.

And why does Cambridge University not add the ranking from École des Mines de Paris where they were actually ranked at 28th in the world, rather they used the other ranking to say and claim that they are one of the world's topmost universities. Is Cambridge really biased? We do not think so.

In any sense, there are many methods to write in the wikipedia, but the way IP user 149.142.75.17 wrote is not totally fair. I do support to use the previous version. Wiki wiki64 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Where are all these new users coming from? All the users above, with the exception of Wikipedian05, have no history of contributing to wikipedia and seem to have logged on with the sole purpose of participating in this discussion. If you look at the other sections in the talk page, this article has a history of complaints against its academic exaggerations.

There is no single template on wikipedia in regards to which rankings to include, and how to present it. Obviously some universities are going to have rankings from ARWU, QS, or THE (since it seems to be the norm for wiki articles on large universities), while others are not. For each university you choose to support one argument, it helps me in another. For instance, Peking University does include multiple years for its THE rankings, but it also does include Beida's THE and ARWU international position. If you want to include multiple years, I am fine with that so long as it includes the most recent year.

I recommend the following: The university was ranked 142nd in the world in 2009, 214th in 2008, 161st in 2007, and 120th in 2006 by Times Higher Education World University Rankings (2009) 

Keio has also been consistently ranked 201-300 by ARWU, and QS Asian rankings just came out in 2010, so multiple rankings wouldn't help here (hence probably why some users want to delete it completely, since there's no way to play around the figures). I have also already stated that I will support the inclusion of THE 2009 rankings for the social sciences, so long as the overall ranking is included with it.

I have no problem with the inclusion of multiple rankings, and all of their findings. I'm against cherry picking rankings, such as only including the rankings from the year the university did its best in, or only including one criteria/field in which the university did the best in, but deleting the overall ranking which that one criteria helped build. When we start choosing rankings in such an arbitrary manner (one year for this ranking, another year for that ranking), it becomes subjective and prone to bias. What we need to do is include all of the data and hide none of it to give readers the best picture of Keio's academic ranking.

Also, one reason why I am against the previous edit is because it swamps all sorts of non-academic rankings with those that do. 4ICU and Webometrics (which Keio scored superb in) do not evaluate academic ranking, but the popularity of university websites. The study by École des Mines de Paris also calculates the proportion of alumni who are CEOs in Fortune 500 Global. In a section on academic rankings, why should these rankings be included with the ARWU/THE/QS rankings and take precedence in order? We also need to differentiate these rankings for the readers so that they don't get confused. Unless we explain what 4ICU is, reader will assume that being first in 4ICU equates to being 1st in academic quality, especially since it is included under the academic ranking section.--149.142.75.17 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This IP user 149.142.75.17 is too self-centered and always insist to use his biased opinion. Do not want to talk more with such kind of person. I suggest to use 3O. Wiki wiki64 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A previous user wrote: '''If you use such biased sense, all Harvard, University of Tokyo, UCLA, LSE, University of Göttingen, University of Sydney and every university in the world should include all rankings, such as ICU, École des Mines de Paris, Global University Ranking, Human Resources & Labor Review, ARWU, QS, THE and many more, to their wikipedia as well. You know why all wikipedians do not add all of them up? Simply answer, because some rankings do not give them a very best rank in each. But is it really biased? We do not think so. As I said, we have many ways to represent data or ranking in various different ways. You should understand about this point.'''

Yes, this is biased! You can't evaluate the utility of rankings just because they "do not give them a very best rank." This is the most blatant, and unapologetic, confession that users are deleting my edits because it doesn't give Keio the "very best rank." If you don't like Keio's position in ARWU, QS, THE rankings, find an international ranking in which Keio scores high and include that in the article! Don't just delete my rankings, and flood it with all sorts of bogus rankings that don't evaluate academic quality. I have absolutely nothing against Keio: I've never visited it, I don't know anybody who goes there. I'm just appalled at how far people will go to twist their university's rankings and pepper it with such glibs as "premier universities." When I first edited the article, it said Keio was one of the most prestigious universities in the world! Hence why I included all these international rankings.--149.142.75.17 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a head's up, but this is a classic case of Avoid academic boosterism, which needs to be seriously addressed for this article.--169.232.190.179 (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

May 2011
Hey guys, I'd like to change some expressions in the introduction part, which is "Brown University and The Japan Times have stated they consider it to be one of the most prestigious universities in Japan.[3][4] It was ranked 3rd in the world in 2011 according to a study by École des Mines de Paris.[5][6]". Because 1. Brown actually has this exchange program, but it is not the only university which has this academic alliance, in fact only one of 104 universities. 2. I checked the Brown's web page, but I couldn't find any expression which says Keio is prestigious. 3. In The Japan Times's article, it was just stated by the head of Keio, so it's not an objective view point at all.

Alternatively, I'd like to change like this: "Keio is considered as one of the most prestigious universities in Japan. "

(the first link above is this) http://sekaione.com/japanese-universities-introduction/

(the second link above is this) http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4062879581/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=466449256&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=4391139847&pf_rd_m=AN1VRQENFRJN5&pf_rd_r=14S08VKN7N87V1H91GB2

I think it's simpler with less subjective references. What do u think about it?


 * IMO any reference to such rankings should be banned from the introduction. It has nothing to do with the introduction's purpose, that is to say introducing the subject, and is only a list of specific points of view. There is a place for that in the article (the "Academic Rankings" part). If you have a look at a FA like University of California, Riverside, you will see that there is not a word about it in the introduction.
 * "Prestigious" is by no way a better wording and is a typical academic boosterism.
 * XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for ur response! I can understand perfectly what u want to say.
 * But the thing is this kinda academic boosterism is everywhere on wikipedia. I checked other Japanese major unis such as University of Tokyo, Kyoto University, Waseda University, Osaka University, and all of them include some kinda prestigious-like expression (Osaka U is slightly better in this point), and it looks like a format for Japanese major Unis. My point of view is 1. I want to change this inaccurate expression in the beginning part related to Brown and JTimes. But if I just deleted it without any other alternative expression, I am sure someone's gonna undo it (Because s/he would think it's not fair Keio is the only Japanese uni that is banned to talk about its prestige in the beginning part), and it's a really pointless and exhausting process for everyone. So, 2. actually it's a compromise proposal for both sides. Maybe we should prepare somewhere else to discuss about what is the best way to describe Japanese unis generally.


 * Btw, is UCR really a good uni in the states? I checked other unis in the UC system, and other unis have some kinda expression like top or best or whatever, such as UCB, UCLA. And tons of other universities in the USA also have this kinda phrase, New York University for instance. It doesn't mean automatically we are allowed to put this kinda expression, but on the other hand, if it's reasonable enough to say it, personally it would not be a big problem.(of course, we have to be careful). And Keio was at least chosen by Japanese government officially as one of national top 30 out of 900 Japanese universities, so I don't feel it's far from truth, and a reasonable compromise draft considering the whole circumstance. What do u think about this point of view?
 * --Silver edu (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of them need a clean up or a, so don't be afraid to do so. Boosterism is the bane of this kind of article, and the best way to get ride of it is to remove it as soon as it appears. There is a place for rankings, but it's not in the introduction. I know that it can be sometimes tiresome but it has to be done somehow (I am working on the French WikiProject Universities and the issues are just the sames).
 * Riverside is not the top uni in the UC system, but it's stil in the UC system, not the CSU one, so definitelly it's not a bad one.
 * As for the Global 30, I think something about international relationships can be done in an "Academics" part. In the French wiki, we are doing that so as to talk about the number of foreign students/ students abroad, number of academic agreements, international alliances...
 * XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks XIIIfromTOKYO. I think u r right. Ok, I guess I'll just delete those expressions later unless any other counter opinions come up here. To be honest, I want to change the whole beginning part just like the article in Japanese(Japanese version has a really nice introduction) and enrich the history part more. Keio has a lot of unique history and cultures (e.g. Dokuritsu Jison, Hangaku Hankyo). I think those kinda things attract people more, and are the ones which people really want to know about.


 * I know several French unis and those who couldn't get a good position in world university rankings have a tendency to struggle how to appeal themselves on their articles. ENA and Science-Po are the good examples. They have ridiculously distinctive reputation in the nation, but not many objective data to prove it. Well, things are always the same across the all nations.
 * --Silver edu (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't receive any other opinions. So I regard it as an approval. I'm going to clean up several expressions thanx.
 * --Silver edu (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If u guys think it's not strong enough, I may add additional description about MEXT's global 30 projects (Japanese government chose top 30 unis in the nation for a strategic reason and keio was chosen in 2001. Actually the Kawaijuku ranking was prepared for this purpose as MEXT asked them to analyze and choose top 30 unis). But I guess it would be unnecessary to be included in Keio's article. Plus, I m planning to prepare the article for that (currently no English version, it's really unbelievable and big shame in terms of the importance of this project to all current and future international students in Japan btw).

I'm going to wait for a week then if no counter opinions, I'll rewrite the expression like above. thanks, --Silver edu (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and one more. I also want to change "Keio University is a member of the Rokudai, the Japanese equivalent of the Ivy League.[29]". Because Rokudai is just a baseball league, and even the students in Keio don't believe that it represents the best unis in Tokyo (there are more or less 10 unis in Tokyo which are the same level or above of lower Rokudai). I can understand why the reference page was confused like this (its historical background looks similar to IVY), it's a typical confusion for Americans. But as the following link describes,

http://iropedia.web.fc2.com/green/ivygreen.html

"The IVY league has various exchange programs to Rokudai (Some people say it's Japanese IVY, but unlike IVY, the academic abilities are vary in Rokudai)".(the bottom of the page)

Rokudai doesn't guarantee any academic excellence, though some universities in Rokudai are good enough as nation's top universities. And this expression would confuse people, when they check Wikipedia. So my alternative proposal is "Keio University is one of the most prestigious universities in Japan as it can be seen in the following rankings.".

I think it's no problem to state like this because this article would prove it in its beginning part if my first proposal was approved.

I'm gonna wait 1 week too like the first proposal, and if there are no any opinions, i'll change it too. thanks --Silver edu (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Athletics go to the Athletics' part. Saying that the Rokudai is something like the Ivy League won't help the reader unless he or she knows what the Ivy League is. Saying that it's a baseball league gathering 6 unis from Tokyo is by far a better way to present the subject. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, I know. And I agree with u. But it's also the same thing like above. Considering the historical path of this article, I need to put sth instead of this expression (otherwise undo-wars would happen again). As u say, things about Rokudai are not really suitable to say in the ranking part (obviously it wants to say Keio is an IVY-like university with a misleading expression). It's a kinda sarcastic result of avoiding academic boostism. Because of that, it's even much worse than a straight expression. So my intention is to change from "worst" to "better than worst".
 * --Silver edu (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't receive any other opinions. So I regard it as an approval. I'm going to change it. thanx.
 * --Silver edu (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI
I have requested a Sock puppet investigation on Wikipedian05 at: Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedian05. Colincbn (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Boosterism, rankings, and the like
While I agree with the essay Avoid academic boosterism, that does not mean that WP cannot state that an institution which is held in high regard is in fact held in high regard. It means we should put any such statements in the context they were originally intended and provide reliable references. As far as ranking goes, they should not be picked and chosen, nor interpreted, to state one point of view or another, they should simply be placed in the article in a way that accurately depicts the intention of the ranking organizations. Looking at FA class articles on other universities should give a good indication how this can be achieved. Featured_articles might be a good place to start. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That being said this article does have a lot of statements regarding the "prestige" of Keio that need to be rewritten in an encyclopedic style. The boosterism essay has some good advice on how to write sentences that avoid Weasel words while still conveying how a university is perceived by the populous. I have some other things on my plate right now but I would like to work on this, if I can find the time. Colincbn (talk)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-04/Keio University
Mediation was requested to help resolve a dispute about academic boosterism. I have volunteered to mediate this dispute. If parties could glance over at the case page and note their acceptance, or lack, of mediation and myself as a mediator, that would be appreciated. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

POV adjectives?
This sentence in the first paragraph is a bit of a problem: "It has nine faculties, which cover a wide range of academic fields, with each operating independently and offering a broad spectrum of creative and unique educational and research activities." How many "academic fields" constitute a "wide range" as opposed to a narrow or medium range? How many activities are needed for a spectrum to be "broad" rather than narrow? What makes an activity "unique"? I think the adjectives are pretty meaningless and should go- any thoughts? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Advert expression in the beginning part (May 2011)
This is the new place for the discussion about whether Ad expression should be included in the beginning part or not, or even what Advertisement is. We have already discussed about this issue before, now we reached the agreement that at least the introduction part shouldn't include any Ad. However, if u think it is not a right conclusion, or logically incorrect, please state your opinion here. Through the discussion, we may find another conclusion. Otherwise we are going to revert or erase those kinds of expressions from the introduction every time when they are added. --Silver edu (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Browser$?
What Unix V6 Linux people are talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.10.28.161 (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

外国語辞書目録, Part 1  By Keio gijuku daigaku. Mita joho senta, 慶應義塾大学. 三田情報センター
http://books.google.com/books?id=vOJGAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	外国語辞書目録, Part 1 Authors	Keio gijuku daigaku. Mita joho senta, 慶應義塾大学. 三田情報センター Publisher	Keio University Mita Library and Information Center, 1973 Original from	Keio University Digitized	Nov 27, 2007

Rajmaan (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Catalog of books and periodicals, Japan Library School collection, Keio giijuku library: 慶應義塾図書館内日本図書館学校図書及び定期刊行物藏書目録
http://books.google.com/books?id=zCNKAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Catalog of books and periodicals, Japan Library School collection, Keio giijuku library: 慶應義塾図書館内日本図書館学校図書及び定期刊行物藏書目録

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZCBKAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Keio University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090306065007/http://www.admissions.keio.ac.jp:80/exam/shigansha.html to http://www.admissions.keio.ac.jp/exam/shigansha.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Keio University. 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/20111006232144/http://www.ic.keio.ac.jp/aboutic/exch_data.html to http://www.ic.keio.ac.jp/aboutic/exch_data.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110422110816/http://yozemi.ac.jp/rank/gakubu/index.html to http://www.yozemi.ac.jp/rank/gakubu/index.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5qER6xqkN?url=http://www.4icu.org/jp/ to http://www.4icu.org/jp/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110920093556/http://grad.admissions.keio.ac.jp/fee.html to http://grad.admissions.keio.ac.jp/fee.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811120319/http://www.gakuji.keio.ac.jp/life/shogaku/data.html to http://www.gakuji.keio.ac.jp/life/shogaku/data.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001194713/http://www.admissions.keio.ac.jp/encourage/guidefile.html to http://www.admissions.keio.ac.jp/encourage/guidefile.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5qER6xqkN?url=http://www.4icu.org/jp/ to http://www.4icu.org/jp/

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) 19:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Keio University. 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/20160821171521/http://www.uni.international.mext.go.jp/university_list/Index/ to http://www.uni.international.mext.go.jp/university_list/Index/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529172638/http://www.ics.hit-u.ac.jp/community/inthenews.html to http://www.ics.hit-u.ac.jp/community/inthenews.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004094313/http://www.webometrics.info/top100_continent.asp?cont=asia to http://www.webometrics.info/top100_continent.asp?cont=asia
 * Added tag to http://www.ijinden.com/_c_09/Murai_Jun.html

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) 21:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverts of the scandal section & COI challenge
There is a discussion about one of the editors being a COI editor going on now at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. --LUMINR (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

These recent news from legitimate sources, being a short section in a 11-chapter article, is necessary and proportional on the ground of WP:NPOV. I once again invite you to talk about your reasons of expunging them.--LUMINR (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

cc: As far as I am concerned, I do not see a legitimate reason why the scandal section should be removed. We have an entire article devoted to CancelYale (and we only have a single section in this case) and provided that we have sources it is not the role of Wikipedia to censor or pick and choose information to include in the article. Multiple POVs should be encouraged. Provided that there has been no objections for the last 9 months, the debate should be deemed as settled with unanimous consent. --114.149.175.32 (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Reason for removing have already posted as comment in history by other user. I cited again this "history" as a summary of editing in the most recent removal.I believe that it is reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monmow (talk • contribs)

Are you affiliated in any way to Keio University? The fact that you deleted the most recent rankings from the actual Times Higher Education website to replace it with a Krio University website mentioning the same albeit old rankings is quite appalling. I urge you to disclose any potential COI. And I am not even going into the fact that there rankings do not belong in the lead nor the fact that if you look at the general rankings (not Alma Mater index), Krio is ranked 600-800th but this is conveniently not mentioned in the article. Furthermore, I have already responded to your reason for deletion; Wikipedia does not censor information with reliable sources. Again, if you have articles repudiating this claim i am happy to include them in the article to have multiple POVs but I will not delete it altogether just because a likely COi user wants it to be gone. Distorting and censoring information is not what wikipedia does--114.149.175.32 (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)