Talk:University of Tokyo/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

SBY graduated from Toudai?

Could anybody cite the source that the Indonesia's current president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono really graduated from Toudai. I am not really sure that he ever attended the university. Pboy2k5 03:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I also could find no confirmation that he ever attended the university, so I have deleted his name from the list. Tomgally 07:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For those who prefers Asianweek ranking of 1998

Apart from the fact that it has passed 8 years from 98, the magazine is not being published anymore. please see this:
ASIAWEEK ceased publication with its Dec. 7, 2001 issue, but its online archives are still available...
Stephen Cannings(Producer, ASIAWEEK.com), Bob Dietz(Managing Editor, ASIAWEEK.com), Dorinda Elliott(Editor, ASIAWEEK)
the rest is here: [1]

Admissions?

From what I've heard admission to UT is extremly selective. Could perhaps someone who knows more about how they work write something about it?

Poktirity 08:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Bog standard test depending on how many spots there are in that course. Given the number of applicants, that's fairly rare, though, so normally it's a test, a review of extra curricular activities, club activities and politics, another test (I'm given to understand it's a great deal like having your ribs slowly removed via your arse), and, if it's still in doubt, a board of people. This is second hand, I'm afraid - talking to a student last time I was deployed. 125.254.101.82 (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the hikikomori (spelling?) entry on wikipedia: "[In Japan,] The higher the prestige of the university, the more difficult the exam, the most prestigious university with the most difficult exam being the University of Tokyo." 68.146.14.97 (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeass.. you see this is nether a forum or a place of logical concussions, either you have a clear source of that exam being the hardest or it is best not to put anything Leonoel (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The exam is considered to be the hardest in Japan, but the exams aren't directly compared to each other, and it may be more likely that only the grading scale for passing the exam is the hardest. The process to apply involves getting a minimum score on the "Senta- Shiken," Japan's attempt at a standardized test, after which, if you qualify, you sit a written exam. There's a fair bit of criticism for the system because testing theory and the like are generally not applied - a group of professors write up some questions and use them, with no thought being given to the quality of the test. For foreigners, admissions is substantially easier, though it depends on your specialty, due to Todai's push for more foreign students so as to climb the rankings. 121.113.84.61 (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Clark Kent a todai alumni?

When wad it ever established that superman attended Tokyo U? Midusunknown 11:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted that sentence ("The DC Comics character Superman is frequently seen in flashbacks as attending the University of Tokyo in his secret identity of Clark Kent."), as I could find no independent confirmation. (On its face, it seems unlikely). Tomgally 07:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Kobayashi Hideo (Todai kendo)

There needs to be an article or section on Todai's kendo association. Chris 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"U of Tokyo in fiction"

Great anime examples, but, eh, shouldn't Sanshirou be included? If it motivated the pond to be named after it, it seems kinda important... Brutannica 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nationalities?

I think it says a high percentage of the students are foreign. Which nationalities are these? I'm just wondering.

~Pan-chan... =3 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally Chinese, Korean, and other Asian ethnicities. There's a fair number of French people too, for whatever reason. 121.113.84.61 (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Interlanguage link

I set a Japanese link based on the rule (Wikipedia:Interlanguage links). Tokyo Watcher

Todai in popular culture

Should we add a mention of either "trivia" or anything around Todai in popular culture? The only example I have currently in mind is that it's a central element in the manga Rabu Hina; but I'm sure lots of others mentions in popular culture are worht adding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.216.69 (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections are discouraged in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and I don't think this would be beneficial to the University of Tokyo article. It could be mentioned at the Rabu Hina article, if it is a central element of that manga. --DAJF (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Todai holds a very special place in the populare culture of japan since it is recognised as the most elite of the elite universities in Japan. The high number of alumni that hold very high ranking offices in government and the industry is bound to make a mark in the populare culture. While I do agree that the exclusion of pop-culture trivia such as the usual "seen in movie/fim/music/whatever x" the Todai in itself is a symbol representign the elite in japanese popculture. the mere mentioning of someone as as tudent at todai or an alumni of today sets a general tone of a charachters class in society. Insted of writing that Mr/Mrs/Miss X comes from a good family with lots of money yo simply say that they are Todai. It also represents the perception of the super genius, if you are at Today you are among the smartest of the smartest. In some cases Todai has been used to represent a class journey, that even though you are not of nobel blood, good family with money and power, if you are smart and work really really hard you can make it in to Todai. This later representation is seen in the manga and anime Love Hina though that is not the only case of this representation. Threrfor I suggest making a note on the cultural significance of todai as a representational symbol of the elite in populare culture.

-Chris V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.28.122 (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Naming of This Article

Shouldn't this article be named the official "The University of Tokyo", rather than University of Tokyo? Occhanikov (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its fine, because the official name is actually 東京大学 (Tokyo University) there is no "The" in Japanese. Leonoel (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I know 東京大学 is the official name in Japanese, but I've never seen "Tokyo University" used as the official name in English. The UT official website [2] and its logo [3] use solely "The University of Tokyo," which thus seems to me the official one. (If its official name were "Tokyo University," then this time we should consider renaming this article "Tokyo University" from "University Tokyo.") Occhanikov (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the name is ok as it is, mainly because it posses no confusion with any other University in Japan. Leonoel (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

whether there is any confusion or not is irrelevant - Occhanikov is correct - the offical name in English is 'The University of Tokyo' - and that's what the article should read. Kunchan (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In principle Occhanikov and Kunchan are correct. But the name of the university as well as the title of this article should be written as "the University of Tokyo" (small t, small o) as in the official logo, only U and T are capitalized. Source: http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/ Donkrem 16:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC+9).

So, in common practice, the "the" has been dropped. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That may or may be not the case, however common practice is irrelevant to the question at hand. The article should be named according to the official designation of the institution it describes. Thus "The University of Tokyo" in the headline and at the beginning of a sentence, and "the University of Tokyo" when mentioned in mid-sentence.Donkrem 16:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC+9)

Everyone please note WP:THEUNI. The official name is mostly irrelevant. The commonly-used practice is what matters. Citobun (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

As Citobun said above, refer to WP:THEUNI. Most importantly, "The" is not capitalized in running text. I have checked all across the school's websites and in their publications. End of discussion. Malayy (talk) 4:34 pm, Today (UTC−6)

New Akamon picture

I am proposing the following picture Image:Tokyo_University_Akamon_2009-04-03.jpg as a replacement for Image:Tokyo_University_Akamon_2004-11-16.jpg. I will go ahead and change it if there are no objections. --Dront (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the replacement. The current picture shows a wider (and entire) appearance of the Akamon gate than the one you are proposing. One problem of the current picture is that it is a little poorly taken, as the sky shines white. But otherwise, the current picture looks better, in that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to introduce something comprehensively but not to tell how artistic a picture is taken. --Occhanikov (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In my oppinion the current picture shows the gate in a bit of an unfavourable light, the focus really falls upon the people approaching the gate rather than the actual gate, the strong white light is distracting, none if this can be considered to be artistic rather than presentational aspects. It is a stunning piece of architecture and deserves to be presented in a way which is more like other landmarks such as Tokyo Tower. The new picture also includes both people passing and people preparing to use the gate as a backdrop for a diploma photo, this is a quite common activity from what I have seen and I feel that it would indeed be a appropriate to include such an activity on the photo. I also disagree that the picture is more artistic, it is just taken at a day which proved to be slightly more beneficial in regard of lighting. If I get no support for the photo I can re-take it and step back a bit to include more parts of the gate if necessary. --Dront (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the use of "artistic," which was too strong. It would be nice if you could retake the photo so it contains a broader view of the gate. I just meant that the picture you proposed is much better in quality, but the current picture contains more information in regard to what the gate looks like, which I believe is also crucial in Wikipedia. --Occhanikov (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Weekly diamond

User:Civilsuit is a sock puppet of Dr90s and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to this sockpuppet investigation for evidence.

how is it an unreliable source? Please explain.--Civilsuit (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "Weekly Diamond" is and the ref you added has no link. If you think the article is reliable, please prove the article is reliable enough to conform to WP:RS. Even if it is proved to be reliable, the Japanese domestic ranking may not be appropriate to list in this article. Please note all of the rankings listed in this article are internationally recognized rankings. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Weekly Diamond" is　a Japanese weekly business magazine. And sources in wikipedia need not be online sources. Wikipedia accepts such sources as books or magazines if they are reliable. Since Weekly Diamond is a Business magazine it does not include silly gossip　so it is reliable. And many articles include domestic rankings.Civilsuit (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ranking re-added by Nihonjoe

User:Nihonjoe reverted my removal of trivial rankings saying "the rankings are notable enough...".[4] I doubt his knowledge of the notability of these university rankings.

Research Papers in Economics is basically intended to judge the economists' ability based on their scholarly papers, not originally intended for universities. It is inappropriate to rank an university by the performance of its Economic department only. The university article having a link to this ranking is currently only University of Tokyo and now none.[5]
University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP) is established in 2009 at Informatics Institute of Middle East Technical University. It is hardly notable, and doesn't have its own article in English Wikipedia. Adding the ranking to university articles is rather WP:Spam.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for edit warring by reverting me again without discussion. It's perfectly legitimate to include a ranking of a specific department, and that information is both encyclopedic and useful. I've reworded it to be more accurate and replaced it. I'll give you the other one, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I should also note that just because only one university article is linking to Research Papers in Economics doesn't mean that one should be removed. Rather, it indicates it might be good to add the information to more articles. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop adding a trash ranking to this article. If you wish this article to be the first article list such a trash ranking, you should provide ample reasons to persuade other editors to get consensus. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Trash" is at best a surprising choice of word. Which of these two is "trash"? (Or are both "trash"?) Please explain your use of the word. As it is, your own comments here are curiously unpersuasive. -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Trash is a trash. If it is used for evaluating economists or economy colleges, it is not a trash. However, if it is used for universities, it is nothing other than a trash. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to throw around words such as "trash", you'd better improve your aim. You're now saying that X is X; but in condition Y, X is not X. Still, you do make clear that you're talking about the economics rating; we're making progress. All right then: Do you or do you not think that the economics rating is worthwhile if it's clearly cited as evaluating Tōdai's achievements in economics? -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes if this article is about the economic department of university of Tokyo. However this article is about a university not a specific department. Even if a description limits a department, it is misleading. Again, the ranking is not used for any other universities in Wikipedia. How do you explain the ranking should be the first inclusion in university article in Wikipedia? Is the ranking so important to include only this article? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note this ranking was added by one time account user who edited this article only. [6] I don't know the user 's intention. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the ranking is important. I'm open-minded about this. I'm interested in your (informed, persuasive) comments on the matter. Let's suppose for a moment that it is important. You ask why it's in this article and only this article. Nihonjoe has already answered this question (above, dated 18:26, 23 January). You are of course free to disagree with his explanation, but I'm puzzled by the way you appear simply to ignore it. You now say Even if a description limits a department, it is misleading. I guess you mean Even if a description is explicitly about one part of a university, it is misleading when it appears within an article on the university as a whole. (Forgive me if I misunderstand you.) I find this bizarre. Duke University is a featured article. It says in part (after markup stripping): In its 2011 edition, U.S. News & World Report ranked the university's undergraduate program 9th among national universities, while ranking the medical, law, public affairs, nursing and business graduate programs as high as 6th and as low as 15th, all among the top 15 in the United States. Now, you may think that the U.S. News & World Report ranking is crap (or that the magazine is crap), but this is by the way; it seems clear to me that this sentence says nothing about the graduate programs in toto, or about any graduate program in for example literature. Are you demanding different or higher standards for this article than are demanded for a Featured Article? (Actually I'd say that the article on Duke has serious problems, but I'd be willing to explain myself.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. However no article describes the ranking 157th in the world unless it is quite important. And you intentionally ignored the discussion about the first inclusion of the ranking in universities article in Wikipedia. Actuary if the ranking is the first in the world, I didn't object the inclusion of the ranking :) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If there is an economic department section in this article, I don't object inclusion of the ranking. However, inclusion in the "Ranking" section will never be acceptable. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only thing unacceptable here is your attitude in approaching this issue. The way you are acting here makes it appear that you believe you own this article, and that is clearly not the case. Multiple people are disagreeing with you on this issue, so apparently it isn't as cut-and-dried as you believe. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Aaa100 is a suspected sock puppet of Dr90s and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to editing habits, contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence.

Phoenix7777　is removing the ranking just because he does not like it. First, numerous articles include rankings which rank specific departments of a university. And they are included in the ranking section. Second, Research Papers in Economics is operated by University of Connecticut, which is a fully accredited university. So the source is clearly reliable and notable. Third, "not number 1 but 157th" is not a good reason to remove the ranking. Wikipedia is not a place for an advertisement. Using wikipedia for advertisement purpose is prohibited. His current attitude is clearly against Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.--Aaa100 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Aaa100 was identified as a block-evading sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr90s/Archive#25 January_2011. I am seriously concerned the ability of two admins around here in distinguishing a good faith edit from a malicious block-evading sockpuppet's edit. These two admins should regret what they have done to encourage the block-evading sockpuppet and apologize for this shameful misconduct. Nihonjoe said "Multiple people are disagreeing with you on this issue". This statement implies the majority voting should reign the decision instead of consensus which clearly against the policy. This article's edit activity is quite low. The "majority voting" by two editors tagged with a block-evading sockpuppet doesn't makes sense. Thanks to these admins, the sockpuppet showed up at this talk page triumphantly. So I have decided to open a SPI and succeeded in exterminating the sockpuppet from Wikipedia.

This article was disrupted by the following sockpuppets of pro-Keio, anti-Todai User:Dr90s at least from August 2010:

Wikipedian05 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Civilsuit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Amanofan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Aaa100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix7777: I am seriously concerned the ability of two admins around here in distinguishing a good faith edit from a malicious block-evading sockpuppet's edit. These two admins should regret what they have done to encourage the block-evading sockpuppet and apologize for this shameful misconduct. Which two admins are these? Their own shameful misconduct or somebody else's shameful misconduct? -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen your discussion, and as I am working in the French wikiproject:university, and have also recently worked on the French version of this article, I think I might help on this issue.

Basically, rankings and prestige-related issues are the banes of this kind of articles. You have good guidelines on this wiki (see here, or here), so it should be good to read them.

On the specific point of the 出身大学別上場企業役員数 ranking, well, it is just one ranking among a lot of them. The daigaku-ranking.net lists something like 70+ rankings for Todai, some of them being, well, weird, even by Japanese standards I think. So if you want to present this ranking aspect without bias, I think you should try to stick to specific level. So, only talk about the main international rankings, but if you chose to include more specific, subjects based, rankings, then you should try to include a large number of them, so as to avoid that a specific approche weighs too much in the article.

On the Human Resources & Labor Review / www.chasecareer.net ranking, it includes the University of Paris, which was disbanded some 40 years ago. This single fact indicates that this ranking should be used with extreme precautions.

Cheers, XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with XIIIfromTOKYO. Even the number of officers of listed companies (出身大学別上場企業役員数)[7] which I removed this time does not take into account the number of graduate students. If it is taken into account, the number of officers per students will be decreased to a third for Waseda and a half for Keio. Then Todai is the number one with twice the number of officers per graduate students compared to Keio and three times to Waseda. However it is quite time consuming to persuade pro-private school enthusiasts to accept this fact. Also regarding the above disputed ranking, it is quite strange to see 157th ranking in Economics among the 20th ranking of major international rankings. Many reader will wonder why Economics, why not Physics, Chemistry or Engineering as XIIIfromTOKYO pointed out. Some rankings place the University of Hong Kong as number one in Asia. It is because it places too much weight to English scholarly papers as above disputed ranking. No one in academics believe the University of Hong Kong is superior to the University of Tokyo overall.

I read the French version of this article, it is quite well written than this article. It surely deserves GA rating. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, Phoenix7777, do you think that rankings (if chosen well) are worthwhile, or don't you? You say you agree with XIIIfromTOKYO, but he or she seems to look askance at any and all ratings. I imagine from this that you don't think they are worthwhile. But then you rather suggest that you wished certain "enthusiasts" did understand certain rankings, suggesting that those rankings are worth understanding.

My own inclination is to zap any mention of any ranking from any university, unless that ranking has got some substantial discussion. Thus it's worth mentioning that a particular group of five universities whose names start with M, A, R, C, and H are often clumped together; not because this clumping is intrinsically of any significance (I strongly suspect that it isn't, and that instead the notion of "MARCH" was cobbled together because its name happens to be pronouncable and memorable) but because merely because the term "MARCH" is bandied around (for better or worse).

Yes, that's a clumping and not a ranking. As for rankings, I hazily remember when Oxford Brookes University outscored Oxford University (i.e. the big, old, famous one) in history of all subjects: this achievement made it into the newspapers. Because it made it into the newspapers, it could be worth a mention. But rankings are in general factoids that people can look up for themselves. If rankings (even meaningful ones) are in articles, they are indeed at the mercy of cherry-picking boosterism. -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hoary, I suggest your discussion be posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities not here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement and NPOV

Is there any reason for these two tags other than the ongoing discussion regarding the ranking (which as of now is re-added). If so, would anyone care to point out which parts of the article that is advertisement and/or blatantly NPOV since I can't spot it by skimming through. It isn't the greatest of articles though, expansion should certainly be a priority. -- Dront (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The tags were invalid and have been removed. The neutrality of the article is not in question, and the article doesn't read like an advert. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight to Rankings

User:Silver edu added a substantial amount of edit regarding ranking of this university.[8] The ranking amounts almost a half of this article (11338 bytes/25174 bytes). This article is not for ranking freak, so If these description is worthwhile, it should be in a separate article like Ranking of University of Tokyo and link that article as a main article in this ranking section.

Note: This debate has been notified to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Undue weight to Rankings.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually Silver edu did that for other Japanese universities as well, and a discussion has started here. I agree that it might be a bit too big now, but some of these rankings could be used in other parts of these articles. i.e those related to entrance exams selectivity could be used in an Admissions and enrollment section in order to explain how it works in Japan, and those related to OB/OG could be used in a Faculty and alumni section (the MP ranking one for exemple). XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I guess it's about my edition. Well, I see ur point. my aim of those postings has started from the problem "for non-Japanese people, it is not easy to capture how the Japanese universities are". And, the only objective(or less subjective) way to distinguish any nature of our social beings is comparison. (for example, if we want to say "Dutch people are tall, we have to state it like "The average high of Dutch male is apx 183 and this is the highest among human beings [citation~], thus Dutch people are tall. otherwise it's just a personal statement, or "so what?" statement. like, Person A "Todai sei usually got 90% of center exam." Person B "So what? my daughter got 95% of the exam she took in her primary school yesterday" )

Knowing what is the uniqueness of something is only able to be stated with such comparison data. Then we can understand.. ahh.. So Todai has such pros and cons etc. Actually Japanese people have been being capturing Japanese universities by the cumulative actions of gathering such quantitative information. That's why people can easily say "Todai is the best" lol. Unless those data are seriously wrong(I actually tried to choose reliable data sources as much as I can), it has to be helpful for those who want to know about Japanese Universities. So I strongly think somehow we have to include those data. It is definitely helpful for solving the so-called asymmetry of information problems.

But of course, as Phoenix7777 said, there should be other way of description. I don't believe what I wrote down is the best, and we can discuss here about what is the best way for this issue.

--Silver edu (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I also plan to enrich descriptions of other sections such as history and culture of not only Todai's article, but also other major Japanese unis's ones. So unbalancing problem would be solved a bit after that.

--Silver edu (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please compare the amounts of edit for rankings;

Harvard University 4.6% 5,037 bytes / 108,504 bytes
Stanford University 7.2% 7,684 bytes / 106,580 bytes
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2.6% 1,986 bytes / 76,672 bytes (There is even no Rankings section in the article.)
University of Tokyo
- 17.1% 2,879 bytes / 16,826 bytes, before your edit.
- 45% 11338 bytes/25174 bytes, after your edit.

From these figure, you can easily understand how ridiculous your addition is. However your work is magnificent and worth keeping somewhere in Wikipedia. So why don't you create a new article Rankings of University of Tokyo and to link to it as a Main article?. Then no one will complain if you expand it as much as you like. Again, it is not acceptable to add your edit to this article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, I like ur proposal. I'm going to creat that ranking page and link it to Todai's ranking section. Thanx for your useful suggestion. :)

--Silver edu (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to ad it to the Template:University_of_Tokyo.XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I did it.Thanx for ur suggestion. --Silver edu (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Which topic should be described more?

I'd like to enrich this article bit more. Not everything from Japanese version, but some of them should be interesting to readers(and also i dont have enough time to do so). I just want to know which topic do u think is primary important and should be noted here. (for example, history, organization, student life, athletics etc) If u guys have any opinions, please let me know. Thanx --Silver edu (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a part about some facilities should be added : elements from University of Tokyo Library, Nikko Botanical Garden, Koishikawa Botanical Gardens for example, but also something about the hospital. Also, if you can find something about the number of students before the 2000's, it might help. I could find something for Kyoto University, but not for Todai. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I also note that the French article fr:Université de Tōkyō is an only Good articles in Wikipedia for University of Tokyo. There are many things to learn from the article. I personally wish to translate it to this article, but it is not accomplished yet. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

Thanx for ur reply. I couldn't find any article on the internet which has the number of students before 2000.　You may be able to find the partial data if u check the book "University of Tokyo in 100 years(1977) [9]". Or alternatively, u can ask such info to Todai directly. Todai is a national university, so it basically has a duty to disclose such info to us, if we require [10]. U may need to pay a little(500 yen or sth like that), but then u will be able to get such info. So if u live in Tokyo, I recommend u to go to Hongo or Komaba and ask someone. If not, maybe u can email or phone them.

And I will think about ur suggestions. How about history especially about how Todai has been related to Japanese society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver edu (talk • contribs) 14:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I agree with Phoenix7777. French version looks pretty nice.

--Silver edu (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask Phoenix7777 if you are preparing (or willing to do) for some updated articles or not. If so, I don't want to interrupt you, so I will leave u for ur ongoing effort. If not, I think I will add extra info on this article.

So, please let me know. thanx

--Silver edu (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You can edit anytime regardless of whether other editors may edit this article. However please keep in mind WP:NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. I will revert your edit as I did if your edit is inappropriate to this article. Please enjoy editing this article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. But I thought Last time u reverted my edit because of Wikipedia:Article size, but not because of Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Because NPOV is about the balance of opinion(quality) but not the balance of the article size(quantity), if my understanding is right.

I joined Wikipedia recently, so I could be terribly wrong about my understanding.

(I just want to make myself clear about your standard to avoid such kind of the same confusion.)

Thanx a lot,

--Silver edu (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE. It may not explicitly states the volume of the edit, however the volume is also quite relevant to the Policy. Because the Ranking is not a major issue of this university. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanx a lot!

--Silver edu (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please update the ranking

According to the latest Times Higher Education ranking which was released this week, the University of Tokyo is the 8th best university in the world. Please update that in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.62.45.177 (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

False. According to (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html), Todai is still the 30th. 121.113.84.61 (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"informally called Tokyo University"

This is not true, and I have removed this un-informed statement. On several occasions, I have heard ToDai people say they find "Tokyo University" offensive. As a ToDai graduate myself, I must agree that the statement "informally called Tokyo University" is uniformed at best and purposefully offensive at worst. Sushilover2000 (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"This is not true", well, in everyday speech "Tokyo University" pops up among native speakers since this is the sequence of words used in Japanese (東京大学). Googling this down is hard (or, at least I couldn't do so very easily), since official sites are given preference and there is a ton of "Tokyo University of X" which are unrelated. Unless you have a written source for "Tokyo University" being offensive, I think it is hyperbole to say so. The fact that the university is referred to in this erroneous way is in my experience a fact (although we need some cites for it), so it is likely to be worthy of a mention somewhere in the article. I am also a graduate student at Todai, so since I have a personal connection to this article I should take great care in editing it, but the above are my personal opinions on the matter. -- Dront (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspectives. I've seen (=personally heard) "Tokyo University" used by non-Todai Japanese to offend Todai Japanese in discussions among Japanese/Gaijin in English. They've done it purposefully to 'get their goat'. Obviously, they had excellent command of English. I agree that such anecdotal info is not appropriate for the page. I agree with you that "the university is referred to in this erroneous way is in my experience a fact (although we need some cites for it), so it is likely to be worthy of a mention somewhere in the article". I've seen it mentioned a couple of times in newspaper articles, can't remember if it was LA Times or NY Times. I'll keep my eyes open for a good citation. I'm not sure that putting 'erroneously referred to' in the first sentence is an aesthetically pleasing way to start the page, but certainly Wikipedia should not propagate the error with 'informally referred to". Sushilover2000 (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is neither offensive nor erroneous but it is rather informal or a short form of "University of Tokyo". "Tokyo University" can be retrieved by Google search and found in the following news media.

Also it is used inside the university domain (u-tokyo.ac.jp)[11]

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked over the links you tracked down. Of those publications, the only informal one is the Lonely Planet blog. The other are formal publications and they are great examples of how Tokyo University is mistakenly used for University of Tokyo. The source of the error is obviously the literal translation of Tokyo Daigaku to Tokyo University. On the University of Tokyo website some of these are clearly mistranslation errors, not informal usage. Other hits refer to non-Todai schools, (e.g., Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology). I think that we should be clarifying this issue on the page somehow, not propagating errors.

Sushilover2000 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this as an intro sentence...

The University of Tokyo (東京大学, Tōkyō daigaku), mistakenly translated as Tokyo University and abbreviated as Todai (東大, Tōdai),^[1] is a research university located in Tokyo, Japan.