Talk:Kim Ung-yong

Some information in this article about the graduation at the age of 15 from sources [[1]], [[2]], and [[3]]. Also i see no support in regards to him learning languages and cant find exactly where in the history it was added. Seems to be a fabrication based upon the sources list.-

Look at the folowing statement ``He could run 100 metres in five seconds, and could lift five cars. He was nicknamed superman.``Somebody takes this bullshit seriously?I think there is no physical possibility how 2 years boy could practice few foreing languages.This is just physically impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.65.89 (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

The sources given do not mention much of the information in the article (it is possible that the information is in the Korean source listed and was mangled by auto-translation). Michaelbusch 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed a source [[4]] on checking its root page and seeing a website that did not seem likely to trustworthy (checked via mechanical translation). I also removed the statements corresponding to information from that source, as per WP:BLP's demands for poorly sourced information. DaoKaioshin 05:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure about the reliability of the articles about kim ung yong. I spoke to the head of the physics department at Colorado State Univeristy (where kim supposedly went) and he told me that he had been asked about him before and that nobody in the department has any recollection of kim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.132.63 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the following statement from the article:

Some (who?) believe that Kim's intelligence level is due to the fact that both of his parents were born at the very same moment, at 11:00 AM on May 23, 1934.

I feel that a specific page needs to be referenced in order for the statement to be reliable. The article references Bruce Felton and Mark Fowler's book The Best, Worst, and Most Unusual. Maybe the fact appears on pages 243-254 (where a "People" section exists) but I cannot be sure as I don't own the book. The edit lists the book as being a 1976 edition but the book was published in 1994, so I thought this was a bit strange. The editor is an anon and this is listed as his only edit. I have left a message on his talk page discussing the changes.
This sounds more like a rumor to me but I could be mistaken. I havent been able to find any other references to this fact (expect for this seemingly unreliable page). I would at the very least like to know the names of Kim's parents before putting the statement back into the article. Any comments would be appreciated, --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 10:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This detail definitely appeared in Guinness World Records in some older editions. It may still be there for all I know. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

"having cut 19 teeth in a single day when he was 100 days old."??? 88.134.116.69 (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

-- Yes it's a very dubious article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.20.156 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

"As of 2007 he was designing mechanized armored battle suits for the Micronesian government." This has to be false, right? Rlorenzo (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I removed most of the content of this article as discussed here. I should also add I was unable to find any mention of Kim Ung-yong on the Chungbuk University web site pages about its engineering or science faculties. I haven't been able to find any English-language sourcing online, that doesn't appear to be derived from this very article. I wonder if we should delete it per BLP1e.

66.127.52.47 (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The below is pasted (and slightly edited) from a post I made last night to wp:BLP noticeboard:

This guy was apparently a famous child prodigy in the 1960's who since then has been trying to keep out of the public eye. The article was vandalized a few days ago (without being fixed) and I just came across it by accident. It has a weird and long history of editing from IP addresses over a several year period. Almost all the content (though not obnoxious) was unsourced with source requests, and seemed weird enough that I deleted it all. Looking at some of the old history (July 2008) it was formerly sourced to a now-404'd German-language article on a Korean TV station website. There is a Wayback Machine snapshot of the article, which is a somewhat gossipy human-interest story but reasonably backs up some of the older and longer versions of the article, so I might restore some of it (the stuff removed is not exactly contentious, just a bit unusual). A bit more annoying, the guy has a fairly large number of Google hits, almost -all- of them apparently derived from the enwiki article. There are also a bunch of interwiki links to non-English wikipedias and the ones I can decipher any of seem to have about the same info. Even the Korean one has the same outgoing links (I can't read any of the words though). I wonder how many of enwiki's BLP problems propagate to other language wikis like this.

Given the frequent vandalism to this article, some watchlisting would be appropriate. On the other hand, a fair amount of the (extensive) IP editing is of reasonable quality, so semi-protection probably isn't called for. It could also be useful if a Korean speaker could look at the Korean sources and maybe find additional ones.

Note: I located a few civil engineering articles with "Ung Yong Kim" as co-author, e.g. about bridge scour. I can't be certain this is the same guy. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's him. He has a patent for bridge scour countermeasures and has written a book on hydrology practice, acc to Marquis Who's Who in America. Nurg (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is a link labelled

• Article in Korean mentioning Kim Ung-Yong (Currently Working as the Leader of the Compensation Department of the Chungcheongbuk-do Government Office of Development)

Can someone who reads Korean some verify that this is the same guy? In looking for English-language sources I found several people with the same or similar name, including a manager of the Samsung Lions baseball team, and a former president of the Korean Taekwondo Association. So I think it is a coincidence. Somebody with two PhD's in technical subjects doesn't end up running an HR department. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I removed the link. Feel free to restore if it turns out to be verifiable. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

There just aren't enough people on the planet for that score to be useful. At 195, you need 8 billion people. Remember than an IQ test only measures the number of people in the world that are smarter and less smart than you.

I'm wondering if we can include a statement directly saying that (sourcing should be easy), or if we need one that directly contradicts this guy's IQ.

Either way, surely we need something about this. — trlkly 20:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think the score of 210 was from Stanford-Binet IQ test, a test based on the old ratio-based IQ calculation method, a method known to produce IQs as high as 225. The rarity you quoted in your statement is based on deviation IQs, not ratio IQs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozart20d (talk • contribs) 04:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

So we should include that the Earth is the center of the universe as well then? Who cares that it's an invalidated model. It used to be the model. So it should be included and implied to be accurate. Yes? No. This 200+ IQ nonsense should be addressed. And using the deviation model, anything over even six s.d. should be considered dubious at best.

yong. Uhh.......shouldn't it sort of be like Yong like capitalized? or are koreans wierd and like to uncapital all their letters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.239.0 (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Did anyone notice that some trollish idiot left an additional zero behind the estimation quote in the second sentence, first paragraph? There is written 2100! IQ of TwoThousandAndAHundred!!!!! I think this guy would be part of the Q-Continuum. Q himself once told captain Picard that he had an IQ of 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.81.160.109 (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article smells like hyperbolic or fabricated bullshit so much. There is no such thing as an IQ of 210. That's over 7 standard deviations. Even the old IQ definition of age achievement ratio is nonsensical and shouldn't be reported as fact.

Extraordinary fluency in languages can mean anything - considering how little command of language most toddlers have. His extraordinary capabilities may not mean what most readers think it means.

"Learned concepts of algebra and could understand concepts of differential calculus" - Again: vague and sounds a lot more impressive than it might have been.

The bits about his university graduation sound socially impossible. The single source backing it up is no longer available (which may or may not mean it was retracted), but right now there is no original live source from a credible news organization.

Also conveniently missing is the name of the American university from which he received his degree at the age of 8.

I'm calling bullshit. The guy may very well be an extraordinary genius, but the reported facts sound hyperbolic at best. 93.172.242.53 (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

So what forum did you guys come from? 4chan? ViriiK (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The sources are not credible and some do not exist; the claims are hyperbolic; the language is vague, and the facts are nonsensical. Please don't revert the changes. 93.172.242.53 (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

You avoided the question. I want to know where you came from. ViriiK (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Damn it. I got trolled into an internet argument again. Never mind. I'll see myself out, and let you be a jerk to the next guy who comes along. 93.172.242.53 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also he graduated from the University of Colorado Boulder where a lot of NASA astronauts have gone to school there FYI. Now, the answer to my question? ViriiK (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

...which can be considered in the context of claims about fabrication

http://www.hanyang.ac.kr/code_html/Y3YAOE217/introEng/faculty/index.html

The history smells like a myth, honestly. Take a close look at third professor :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.111.70.176 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's someone else. Nurg (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

What do we really know about the life of this person from reliable sources? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Neither the Stanford-Binet IQ test nor the Wechsler IQ test had standard scores in their scoring tables as high as the score reported in this article. The IQ score reported in this article perhaps resulted from a scoring mistake. See Marilyn vos Savant for a reference with background on this issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

From the article: "At age four he scored over 200 on an IQ test normally given to seven-year-olds." So, (7 / 4) x 100 = 175, not 200.

On the other hand, his adult IQ at the age of 7 is about: (7 / 16) x 100 = 43.75 This result is an approximation of the child's adult IQ at the moment the test was taken.

See here: "Interpretation of Childhood I.Q." by Paul Cooijmans Link: http://paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/childiq.html 88.230.68.71 (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

From search results of Guinness World Records own record database - there is no record of a Kim Ung-Yong having a high IQ score at all. Link: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/search?term=kim+ung-yong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.7 (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

According to namu wiki (the Korean wikipedia), his record was in the 1980 edition of the Guiness World Records (https://namu.wiki/w/%EA%B9%80%EC%9B%85%EC%9A%A9#fn-17). There is no online archive, so I cannot confirm this. Anyone willing to pay up? FlyinfFoucalt (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is no source that state he had a Master's degree, and it's contradicted in the article. The article states he was home schooled and never went to school outside of Korea, and that he only did elementary school & beyond in Korea after NASA. If he didn't do a Master's in Korea before NASA, and he didn't do a Master's outside of Korea, then he had no Master's degree before NASA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unsuspected (talk • contribs) 06:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ok bye 217.218.121.184 (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• KimUng-yong.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 3 years old Kim Ung-yong.jpg
• Kim Ung-yong enjoying food and facing camera. 1967.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

A sub-heading of his biography is called "NASA and education", but NASA is never mentioned in the text at all, it only says it is a rumour that he studied at the University of Colorado. Either the heading should be changed or NASA should be mentioned (I've seen that version of the story online, so it might be worth a mention if only as a rumour) KnightofFaerië (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sheepman2099 You have been removing some recent material and have placed assertions such as "However, the official Guinness World Records does not support such claim" and "There is no sufficient information to evaluate reliability of these claims." You haven't provided any sources to justify the removal of material; keep in mind that policy prohibits no original research (see WP:NOR). GuardianH (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I tried reading the article in its form on the 8th of July 2023 and the section about his education just cannot be followed. The phrases don't flow from the previous text, no chronological order can be established.

I assume this is due to the many edits done. The education section is basically unreadable if you want to extract any useful information from it. 5.12.230.168 (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply