Talk:Severance Hospital

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yonsei Severance Hospital[edit]

Amongst the following reference source(s), please point out the specific passage(s) on which you rely in posting "Yonsei Severance Hospital"?

  • "연세대학교 의대 세브란스병원 (延世大學校醫大 ─ 病院)" (in Korean). Empas/ Britannica.
  • "연세대학교의료원 (延世大學校醫療院)" (in Korean). Empas/ EncyKorea.
  • Official Website

As you know, the alternate name for this hospital will need to be removed from the introduction unless something in these sources specifically utilizes the precise language you have added -- see diff

In order to be both clear and non-confrontational, I would hope you will construe it as helpful for me to direct your attention to a familiar paragraph at WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Perhaps this becomes a very simple matter, easily resolved? --Tenmei (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a Japanese who is supposed to be able to read Chinese characters, so why don't you try to even read the "Chinese characters" of the sources? Very hard task for you?--Caspian blue 23:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This posting is non-responsive and pointlessly provocative. I believed at the time that ignoring such misdirection was the most constructive contribution I could make. That view has changed. It now seems clear that such confrontational prose needs to be labelled as such and rebuffed as unhelpful. --Tenmei (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The institution does not call its self "Yonsei University Severance Hospital". See its webpage. (Occidentalist (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
Comment: The questions I raised about the phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital" were informed by the following:
This is not proof that Caspian blue is wrong, but the difficulty in responding to specific questions is a reasonable cause for asking more questions. I had thought that by accepting "Yonsei University Severance Hospital" as a step in the right dirction, it could become a common foundation from which to work. That now appears to have been an overly optimistic approach to a seemingly intractable and inexplicable resistance? --Tenmei (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You blindly reverted my edits regardless of the newly provided sources. Yonsei University, College of Medicine Severance Hospital is an official name, and people commonly call the hospital "Yonsei University Severance Hospital" or "Yonsei Severance Hospital" if you see the references. You follow my edits and want to cause problems.--Caspian blue 06:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:There was nothing "blind" in Occidentalist's rejection of additional reference sources which simply do not prove the point -- that is, not a single source Caspian blue has proffered thus far supports the specific, exact phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital"; and the additional fruitless research, while not proving the term is invalid, does raise the level of incredulity which has been exacerbated by the provocative, confrontational and inflammatory tone Caspian blue chooses to present again and again. --Tenmei (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official name?[edit]

I emailed them. It is officially called Severance Hospital. At no time in its history was it called Yonsei University Severance Hospital.

The articles discuss Yonsei Medical Center and call it "Severance Hospital". It is simple. (Occidentalist (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

So where is the evidence of the email? Also why did you still put the {{OR}}, {{Synthesis}}, {{Noreference}} tags? The infomation found in the encyclopedias confirm the another title. You can forward your email to WP:OTRS team, so I can also verify your claim. --Caspian blue 14:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you need someone to verify the contents of an OTRS ticket, I can do that for you. Just let me know as I don't have this page watched (found it on WP:AN/I). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the offer, but I'm not sure the sockpuppeter really sent an email given his "usual" disruption.--Caspian blue 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official name on the website in both korean and english is "severance hospital" its is not prefixed with yonsei in either language. Accordinng to yuhs website though there are multiple severance hospitals and in fact those hospitals are referred to as: yongdong severance hospital and yongin severance hospital, the yonsei one is referred to just as severance hospital. This is also the same in korean. Its quite possible hte locals may refer to it as "yonsei severance hospital" to differentiate it from the other two severance hospitals, that I can't comment on.--Crossmr (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Encyclopedias call the hospital 연세대학교의대 세브란스병원 (Yonsei University College of Medicine Severance Hospital) because it is the "official" even though it very long. It says, Severance hospital (세브란스 병원) is a synonymy of 연세대학교의대 세브란스병원. The encyclopedia sites have a redirect page of 세브란스의대병원 (Severance University Hospital) to the 연세대학교의대 세브란스병원. The tagging by Tenmei is simply trolling in my opinion.--Caspian blue 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian blue -- At this state of dispute discussions and particularly in the context established by the not insubstantial research which informs what you may construe as temerity -- diff, the heedlessly derogatory term "trolling" becomes an unjustified personal affront. At a minimum, I must ask you to strike the offending word and re-state your thoughts accordingly.
The statement immediately above, while plausibly helpful, does not resolve this very clear WP:V issue. Please provide citations similar to the ones identified in link proffered in the 1st paragraph of this posting; but, if possible, identify citations which use the specific, unique phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital." As we both know, this is not easily done. --Tenmei (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You has kept making hoax and false allegations over and over. Therefore, you highly inappropriate behaviors are all trolling, harassment, and personal attacks. Prove that when I hijacked your RFC in 23 seconds. You must apologize to me for your repeated insults. I ask you to strike all offensive and outrageous derogatory terms like "hoax" and various personal attacks. Do not fool me any more. I have too much enough of you. Here are very little pieces for your personal attacks.
This user's limited grasp of English usage renders this conclusory argument suspect.. There disambiguation page was nothing but a contrived gambit,
The oblique purpose of this thread is to distract attention from yet another variant wiki-hoax contrived by Caspian blue at Yonsei. Remove all your insults from talk pages and noticeboards.--Caspian blue 09:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-responsive commentary unrelated to WP:V issue. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you're the one who has making talk page filled with irrelevant matters including your personal attacks, the issue regarding your conducts are all related to here. You're always so quiet about your wrongdoings just like your recent 3RR violation. Apologize your behaviors.--Caspian blue 16:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating for redundant emphasis:
Non-responsive commentary unrelated to WP:V issue.
And a line from William Shakespeare comes to mind:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
-- Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230.
While Caspian blue may or may not appreciate the aptness of this Shakespearean quotation, it is reasonable to expect that many who read this thread will understand -- which becomes a non-controversial point worth making. --Tenmei (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're evading the main subject again and again which you've brought up here. Why did you think that I magically hijacked your RFC in 23 seconds and why did you constantly say nasty comments such as deaf's ears? Why have been you trolling the talk page? You can't answer any question because you know you committed wrong, and want to avoid your responsibility for your wrongdoings. That is who you're. Strike your nasty personal attack as like the hoax accusation. When you stroke it, did you feel any shame on yourself?--Caspian blue 22:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating again for redundant emphasis:
Non-responsive commentary unrelated to WP:V issue. --Tenmei (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Civility is a critically core principle to make editors continue conversations. Abide by the rule.--Caspian blue 18:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material, original research, and synthesis[edit]

The contrived phrase "Yonsei Severance Hosptial" appears to be unsourced material. It is appropriate and reasonable that the phrase is tagged with the relevant templates which have been posted on the main page. Moreover, this has been explained and amplified by appropriate comments already posted on this talk page -- see above.

This continuing objection concerns what seems to be nothing more than a curious neologism. To use a term Caspian blue introduces into this dispute/discussion, it seems to be, on the basis of available data, to be a kind of "hoax"?

Summarizing the causes for dispute in words which are incorporated into the tag templates:

  • 1. The phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital" needs credible citations for verification.
  • 2. The phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital" is based entirely on original research or unverified claims.
  • 3. The phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital" is based entirely on an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources.

Unless the phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital" is improved by adding references, (a) the justifiable attack on its veracity will remain unrelenting; and (b) the wiki-procedures now in place anticipate that unsourced material will be challenged and removed.

A plausible response would [have] be[en] for anyone to help improve this questioned redirect by proffering reliable references. A mere "revert" without more will prove unsatisfactory. Why can't this become a very simple matter, easily resolved? --Tenmei (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian blue -- The following source citations adequately address the reasonable questions I have asked ad nauseum without an answer before this:
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: A plausible response would have been for anyone to help improve this questioned redirect by proffering reliable references.
However, Caspian blue the words you posted in the edit box by are uncalled-for, unwelcome, offensive. I recopy them here for redundant clarity -- you posted:
  • (diff) (hist) . . Severance Hospital‎; 04:18 . . (+404) . . Caspian blue (Talk | contribs) (rvv by User:Tenmei's habitual disrutpion / The Korean encyclopedias info are regarded reliable, and there are no OR/SYN unlike your false accusation. / add more English sources due to the trolling)
  • 1. "habitual disruption" ... NO. Your words have offended me. Stop.
  • 2. WP:OR and WP:SYN were not "false accusation;" rather it was an accurate assessment based on the information available AND -- this is crucial -- both were always mentioned in a context which invited you or anyone else to simply demonstrate in a manner consistent with WP:V that the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severence Hospital was incorporated in the text of a credible source. I am not offended by a mistake, but if you persist in claiming that anything to do with this matter is a "false accusation," I may be offended and I will ask you to stop.
  • 3. One further point, I have not now or ever claimed, suggested or implied that a credible Korean encyclopedia is not reliable. I have questioned whether the specific citations. In response, you provided were sufficient to verify the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital."
Caspian blue -- I will assume that you have read and understood these words and ideas. If you do not understand any or all of it, you have only to ask questions; and I will try to respond clearly and reasonably. In the absence of further questions, I will assume that this represents a foundation plank from which you and I will build a more constructive working relationship. --Tenmei (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei[edit]

Tenmei (talk · contribs), the Korean sources are reliable and you blatantly disregard the sources because of your inability of reading the sources. I also provided a result from google search and you just refused to look at it. I inserted additional citations just for the title because of your constant harassment and trolling to me and articles. You may be good at some area but you're the last person that I want to share with my time in Wikipedia. You just want to deny any results that the usages of Yonsei for Yonsei University is dominant over the Japanese term referring to the fourth generation of Japanese immigrants.

The only reason that I currently support Yonsei stays as a DAB page at the Talk:Yonsei (disambiguation) is to stay "far far far away from you", and to stop talking with you regardless of whether this dispute is just wrapped up without any consensus or not. I hope you indulge in the subject with your "grand ambition" for the generation articles. This decision is not because your obstinate insistence is logical or persuasive to me, but because any conversation with you is totally worthless with no gain, and just causes me to have increasingly excruciating "headache", "fatigue", "exhaustion", and "stress". Along with your absurd accusations regarding "hoax"ness, you also "distorted" that I did not do research on the subject before nominating the AFD. As I already stated, I "did" research and checked sources with some deal of time. I would have no intention to retract my position even if we were going back to the time of the AFD was right open. You're not the only one who read the request by Dekkappai back then. I sometimes checked to see if he is back from his retirement in my hopeful thinking. Before that, I've also known the meaning/position of issei, and nisei placed in the history of Asian immigration along with Chinese-American history through books/documentaries/movies etc, but "yonsei"? *shrug*. Besides, if you check on the history of Yonsei University article, you will see my name on May for the redirect and hat note. I suggest you to rethink about why you don't get much attention from people on the contrary of your lengthy postings here and there. Do not intentionally make people irritated further.--Caspian blue 04:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's kidding who?[edit]

Caspian blue -- For the moment, I will only respond to the first sentence of this undistinguished posting. For redundant clarity, what you wrote bears re-copying here:

Tenmei, "the Korean sources are reliable and you blatantly disregard the sources because of your inability of reading the sources. I also provided a result from google search and you just refused to look at it."
FACT: I have not now or ever construed ... "Korean sources as unreliable ..."
  • Do not post such inflammatory, provocative, confrontational sentences in any context which involves me. I consider this as a personal attack and I will respond vigorously if you ever do it again. To be redundantly CLEAR, PRECISE, UNAMBIGUOUS: You damn well need to be prepared with credible proof of such a claim in future or you can expect for me to shove this unconscionable, extravagant invective to be shoved down your throat sideways. It is my intention with this sentence to be idiomatically emphatic.
FACT: I have not now or ever ... "blatantly disregard[ed] the [Korean] sources ..."
  • Do not post such inflammatory, provocative, confrontational sentences in any context which involves me. I consider this as a personal attack and I will respond vigorously if you ever do it again. To be redundantly CLEAR, PRECISE, UNAMBIGUOUS: You damn well need to be prepared with credible proof of such a claim in future or you can expect for me to shove this unconscionable, extravagant invective to be shoved down your throat sideways. It is my intention with this sentence to be idiomatically emphatic.
FACT: I have not now or ever disregarded, devalued, underappreciated, ignored, diminished, or denied Korean sources or citations presented in Korean ... "because of your[an] inability of[to] reading the sources."
  • Do not post such inflammatory, provocative, confrontational sentences in any context which involves me. I consider this as a personal attack and I will respond vigorously if you ever do it again. To be redundantly CLEAR, PRECISE, UNAMBIGUOUS: You damn well need to be prepared with credible proof of such a claim in future or you can expect for me to shove this unconscionable, extravagant invective to be shoved down your throat sideways. It is my intention with this sentence to be idiomatically emphatic.
Shortcuts
At the same time, I want to make abundantly clear, that there is no Wikipedia-related obligation that I should have needed to go to the trouble of translating a Korean-language citation, as is explicitly explained in the following passage from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-english sources:
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

Burden of evidence[edit]

Shortcuts
For how to write citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references.

In sum, my response to the one sentence you have posted is: Who's kidding who? This needs to be last in a series of postings which are characterized by over-reaching ....

This is not a problem I should have to deal with.

Caspian blue -- Pull yourself together. Think about this in a thoughtful, step-by-step fashion. Stop creating the appearance of problems which don't need to be problems at all. Stop contriving accusations which simply cannot withstand closer scrutiny ... as is amply illustrated in the first sentence of the posting above. --Tenmei (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian blue -- As you know, for further explanation, it is reasonable to incorporate the threads developed at Talk:Yonsei Severance Hospital. --Tenmei (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raising the level of dispute[edit]

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) 14:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Are three templates legitimate or simple trolling?[edit]

Note that the above text was posted by Caspian blue; and the diff was inadvertently left unsigned.
Comment: I would have thought a non-controversial section heading would have been more constructively focused on whether a citation is or is not needed for the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital"? However, the issue as provocatively articulated by Caspian blue could become a helpful corollary topic as amplified in the threads developed on the page above. --Tenmei (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section heading is bad, unless this is intended as an RfC for user conduct. If the latter then the venue is wrong. I would suggest "RfC: When should the name of the article subject require a source", or some such. Taemyr (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit unclear what exactly this RfC is about. There are four issues here, and they are not so closely linked as I think the participants believe.

  1. Should the name "Yonsei Severance Hospital" be included in the article, and does it need a citation?
  2. Should Yonsei Severance Hospital redirect here, does the redirect require a source?
  3. Should this article be included in the Yonsei_(disambiguation)?
  4. The issue about primary topic for Yonsei.

The last item is discussed at Talk:Yonsei (disambiguation), and since the hospital is not suggested as a primary topic is really not relevant.

The first point is governed by WP:V, every fact needs to be verifiable. Conventionally however few articles does cite the AKA's. There is also the issue weight, if the name Yonsei Severance Hospital is used very rarely having it in the lead as an alternate name can be seen as giving undue weight. I do not know enough about Korea to comment in a meaningful manner on the question of weight.

The second issue, is better resolved at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. However, the claim that any user typing "Yonsei Severance Hospital" into the search bar is looking for this article is hard to disbelieve. The redirect does not require sources, since such sources would never be seen by the reader. It does touch upon the first issue though, since when we redirect an alternate name it is preferable to include that name in the lead. But I do not think the requirement is strong, if due weight or lack of verifiability means that the name is not included in the article I believe the redirect should stay as long as it is plausible.

The third issue, should the hospital be included on the dab, is essentially unrelated. The inclusion of Severance Hospital on Yonsei is governed by one thing; is the hospital known by "Yonsei". Not is the hospital known by a term that includes "Yonsei". Taemyr (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could simply removed the template by Tenmei's usual trolling to the article, which I believe so, but this RFC is to give him have a chance to acknowledge his "eccentric" behaviors. The only reason he put the alleged unpublished synthesis and original research templates is to remove the alternative name of the hospital from the dab page. I provided reliable sources to the article, so there is no such allegation Tenmei insists. I'm not tolerate by such repeated harassment.--Caspian blue 02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content RfC's are not the place to attempt to fix other users conduct. Taemyr (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HIJACKED RfC[edit]

Slow-motion crash which should have been avoidable.

This is the sequence of edits which are wrongly described as harassment. A simple question about the need for a credible citation consistent with WP:V, is twisted into a Gordian Knot for which I am not to be blamed:

  • 2. diff: In less than one minute, I discovered to my surprise that Caspian blue had hijacked the RfC
  • 3. diff: I posted a disclaimer on this page ... and the subject was simple: whether a citation is or is not needed for the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital"?
  • 4. diff: I manually posted a non-controversial statement of the RfC subject on the appropriate page ... but this effort was subsequently hijacked as well.
  • 5. diff: Caspian blue defines the RfC as harassment, when -- as shown by the edit history -- this is naught but another self-created charade.

PROBLEM: Caspian blue alone deserves to be held accountable for disingenuous complaints which Caspian blue has created.
QUESTION: What about the initial RfC issue? Without credible citations supporting the use of the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital," is it not "trolling" and not disruptive to delete the unsourced phrase after repeatedly asking for compliance with WP:V?

I do not know how to address this needlessly complicated mess. --Tenmei (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that this minor conflict needs to be resolved? --Tenmei (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language and linguistics is completely wrong, because this article is not about languages or linguistics. Economy, trade, and companies might be right, or Maths, science, and technology might be right, but not languages and linguistics. —Angr 16:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Language and linguistics is wrong. That just isn't what the article is about. I see no inherent problem with having the RfC posted at more than one place though. Taemyr (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least I did not make a mistake like putting the RFC template which should be placed on the talk page not on the main page.--Caspian blue 02:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hijacked RFC in 23 sec.? No more personal attacks[edit]

Tenmei, you're still attacking me as depicting my RFC filing as a "robbery". Your behaviors are really out of line. I'm the one who should report you.

As soon as seeing your absurd tagging again to the article, I filed the RFC with several lines at *2008-11-22T15:13:47

Unlike me, your RFC without any reason on the main page was at *2008-11-22T15:13:24 There is 23 seconds gap between mine and yours. You did not even put your reason. Do you reall think that writing several lines and putting the RFC and finding a fitting RFC category would take only 23 second? Be logical. Your constant false accusation and personal attacks constitutes "personal attacks" and "harassment". I gave you a chance to redeem your bad faith comments and personal attacks against me as not reporting your clear 3RR violation to AN3, but all you gotta do is this fiasco? Very good one.--Caspian blue 15:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer me, how did I hijack your RFC in 23 seconds? Your so-called logic is always skewed and implausible. Answer the question because you're making dramas.--Caspian blue 16:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noise[edit]

Caspian blue deleted the following comment atttributed to an anonymous IP which was considered a sock puppet of a banned user:

  • diff 14:12, 27 November 2008 Caspian blue (Talk | contribs) (35,793 bytes) (rvv by 58.89.92.166 baned user User:Lucyintheskywithdada's block evasion. Banned user is not allowed to edit Wikipedia) (undo)

The opinions expressed above do have significant resonance; and indeed, some of the views are ones I would have refrained from posting myself, for fear of inciting the plausibly anticipated consequences ... which, of course, it exactly the point User:58.89.92.166 was trying to make. --Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the banned user's rant who is not allowed to edit Wikipedia and caused more drama by his involvement in this. Seek your stance from other editors in good standing, not from the sockpuppeter. The diff is enough. Do not do that.--Caspian blue 18:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Caspian blue typed in WP:Civility as an edit summary above -- an engaging contribution. This participatory "tweaking" has merit; and it is not to be undervalued nor inadvertently overlooked. --Tenmei (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Banned means banned. Taemyr (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take the comments of Caspian blue and Taemyr as encouraging me to review Wikipedia:Banning policy as it may relate to a better appreciation of ameliorating unhelpful "noise" in a Wikipedia context. --Tenmei (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<Removed comment from banned user>
Documentingabuse is a confirmed sock of Lucy, and that is the reason it was blocked. I know of no formal discussion on your block, but consider your use of socks to be disruptive enough that a ban is warranted. More importantly, there is little dissenting views to Caspian's assertion that you are banned, indicating that a ban in fact has consensus. Taemyr (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate article?[edit]

Appears to be the same subject as Chejungwon 1.159.58.220 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Severance_Hospital&oldid=1203795221"