Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The reason why UIR should be linked to BLCU:
According to the BLCU page: "Beijing Language and Culture University .... is the only one of its kind in China with its main task set at teaching the Chinese language and culture to foreign students."
While this is historically true it is no longer the case. The mandate of UIR-CIE is the same as that of BLCU. Therefore these two institutions are the only two institutions in China officially sanctioned by the Ministry of education with this stated purpose. Therefore I had added a link between the two. BLCU and UIR-CIE are now counterparts or perhaps competitors. UIR-CIE is emerging as an alternative for BLCU. (I will also try to add to BLCU in the future) BLCU is close to capacity with classes ranging up to 30 students. Therefore, it is important that the link be demonstrated between UIR-CIE and BLCU as it is quickly becoming an alternative.
I just reverted an edit that removed the following paragraph:
The editor who removed this content said in their edit summary that the links were broken, and that the school is called a different name in the links (the institute of international relations). This edit summary raises a very interesting question of how the editor knew these articles used a different school name if, indeed, the links were broken. But alas, the links are not broken. As to the discrepancy in the name, the school was previously called the international relations institute (see "former names" on the right-hand side of this page). Homunculus ( duihua) 14:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
"international relations institute" is just a common name that can refer to any universities.
Watner (
talk) 13:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
You are too POV pushing. Espionage can not be trained in universities. Citing some POV to support your POV doesn't make sense. Besides, the school names do differ.
Watner (
talk) 12:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Over the last several days, a user has repeatedly deleted the following from the lede of the article:
Note that this is supported by three reliable sources. Each time user has deleted this content, I have engaged them on their talk page [3] or on the article's talk page. They have continued deleting the content by variously arguing that 1)The links to the sources are broken (they are not); 2)The articles use different names for the school (this is because there are indeed different translations for the school's name, as stated in the article); 3) That the sources are "POV" (I don't know what this is supposed to mean in this context); or 4) "Espionage can not be trained in universities" (according to three RS, it is).
I'll looking for third party feedback to weigh in on the inclusion of the above material. Homunculus ( duihua) 12:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Here are some of the quotes. Note that the Stratfor report also contains some graphical elements that show the position of the university in the MSS bureaucracy here [5]. Also note that these authors use three different translations for the institute, but they are all referring to the same thing, that is the Guoji guanxi xueyuan.
If you're wondering about the difference between the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of State Security, they are different entities. The latter was not created until 1983 under Deng Xiaoping, and assumed a number of responsibilities of the Ministry of Public Security. Therefore, the Guoji guanxi xueyuan was not initially created by the MSS, but it is now run by the MSS (according to the Stratfor report), and is where MSS intelligence personal (and undercover Xinhua intelligence agents, apparently) receive their training. Homunculus ( duihua) 02:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
There are several other reliable sources that support the claim. The Jamestown foundation's contribution is actually quite redundant. Still, I find your rationale troublesome. Would you have the same objections over a statement that originated with, say, a left-leaning organization like the Brookings Institution? Or if the claim came from Minxin Pei of the obviously pro-American Carnegie Endowment? It's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, yet the crux of your argument seems to be that a political bias or a pro-American bias renders an institutional or individual prone to deception. If those were the criteria for a reliable source, we would really be tying our hands. Would you still object if the author had been someone with more notoriety, like Willy Lam (one of the Jamestown Foundation's Senior Fellows, and also a well regarded China analyst)? You have yet to illustrate why this particular author or institution would have reason to lie about the affiliations of an obscure Beijing university, or should otherwise be regarded as not trustworthy when reporting on China. Given the presence of multiple additional sources that point to the MSS connection, I find it confounding that you would apply a non-neutral tag to the article because one of the sources is a right-leaning think tank. Per Noleander, I sought a compromise with you by mentioning the names of the sources in line. What further solutions (hopefully based on WP policy or guidelines) do you propose? Homunculus ( duihua) 12:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
This is exhausting. Look, as a matter of principle, I don't like being bullied into removing sources that are, in my estimation, scholarly and credible. But I am going to remove it, along with the non-neutral tag. I assume this will satisfy you. Homunculus ( duihua) 16:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that a new editor has moved the information from Stratfor and Jamestown Foundation out of the lede and into a section titled "Controversy." A controversy is defined by the presence of a debate (often a public and protracted one). The issue of the university's MSS affiliation does not seem to satisfy that definition; all we have are reliable sources identifying the University as being bureaucratically subordinate to the MSS, and we don't have reliable sources contesting that point.
As to the claim that the article is unbalanced, an editor had expressed concerns during the RfC that Jamestown is anti-Communist/pro-American, and suggested that this might compromise its ability to report truthfully and objectively on the institutions of the PRC. I disagreed, but regardless, Noleander and Silktork proposed that the solution was simple transparency, citing the sources of the claims in the text. This has been done. Why do concerns about neutrality persist? And can the editor who flagged the article please elaborate on how they feel greater neutrality could be achieved? Homunculus ( duihua) 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
What does the 2008 Olympic game singer
Liu Huan have to do espionage?
Admick (
talk) 01:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
There are several sources in the article indicating this university is under the control of China's Ministry of Education. The university admits students through the college entrance exam, teaches students internationl studies, foreign language and offer undergraduate and graduate degrees. Graduates from this school become pop singers, business executives, professors and scholars, enviromentalists and government officials. It also trains foreigners in China Chinese language. All these facts about this school contradicts with espionage training. I think MSS should train their sepionage after hiring them, not train them in a university. The sources used by Homunculus is groundless POVs contradicts with common sense.
Admick (
talk) 12:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
So you now are admitting there is a debate and controversy. Then put your controversy into a controversy section not the lede. The good source you claimed [A. Doak Barnett, "The making of foreign policy in China: structure and process," Westview Press, 1985] only mentions this school in China's foreign policy context. Why doesn't it talk about espionage if this is a epionage training school? What does Police Department do with International Relations. Your source are ridiculous. You are POV pushing, biased toward radical groundless POV claims. What are the factual evidences can you provide to support these claims? Otherwise, I consider this macilous and POV.
Admick (
talk) 14:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, the students in this school are only students NOT spies. CIA hire spies from all schools, so does MSS in China. Students graduated from this school certainly can become spies if hired by MSS. But so do college graudates from other Chinese schools. The school itself is certainly not a CIA-like intelligence organization with different intelligence offices. It only has academic departments. MSS and CIA don't need to openly eatablish a univertiy to train spies. They only need to establish an internal secrete training organization to do so. I think CIA and MSS should be highly selective when hiring spies. It is imposible for MSS to hire so many spies each year through college entrance examination. Some of the words and sources in this article are too biased, and need to be removed for neutrality purpuose. 钉钉 ( talk) 09:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
It is totally malicous for you to delete the following contents from this article:
As for the contraversy, Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Neutral point of view is "non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Articles should be written in an impartial tone, "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view". Section title "Alleged ties to Chinese intelligence services" and the sentence in the lead paragraph "The university is linked to the Ministry of State Security, the country's principal civilian intelligence agency, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and others." are taking stand only on one side of the story. It is violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -- EditQ ( talk) 08:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
References
@ Amigao@Abovfold Contens in Wikipedia needs to be backed by reliable sources. Source information also must not be distorted.
--- EditQ ( talk) 12:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@ User:Amigao: UIR was authorized to offer Ph.D. in 2021 [6]. The statement that UIR has joint Ph.D.is inaccurate and the source used to back this view "阳光高考" is not a reliable source. EditQ ( talk) 13:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The reason why UIR should be linked to BLCU:
According to the BLCU page: "Beijing Language and Culture University .... is the only one of its kind in China with its main task set at teaching the Chinese language and culture to foreign students."
While this is historically true it is no longer the case. The mandate of UIR-CIE is the same as that of BLCU. Therefore these two institutions are the only two institutions in China officially sanctioned by the Ministry of education with this stated purpose. Therefore I had added a link between the two. BLCU and UIR-CIE are now counterparts or perhaps competitors. UIR-CIE is emerging as an alternative for BLCU. (I will also try to add to BLCU in the future) BLCU is close to capacity with classes ranging up to 30 students. Therefore, it is important that the link be demonstrated between UIR-CIE and BLCU as it is quickly becoming an alternative.
I just reverted an edit that removed the following paragraph:
The editor who removed this content said in their edit summary that the links were broken, and that the school is called a different name in the links (the institute of international relations). This edit summary raises a very interesting question of how the editor knew these articles used a different school name if, indeed, the links were broken. But alas, the links are not broken. As to the discrepancy in the name, the school was previously called the international relations institute (see "former names" on the right-hand side of this page). Homunculus ( duihua) 14:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
"international relations institute" is just a common name that can refer to any universities.
Watner (
talk) 13:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
You are too POV pushing. Espionage can not be trained in universities. Citing some POV to support your POV doesn't make sense. Besides, the school names do differ.
Watner (
talk) 12:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Over the last several days, a user has repeatedly deleted the following from the lede of the article:
Note that this is supported by three reliable sources. Each time user has deleted this content, I have engaged them on their talk page [3] or on the article's talk page. They have continued deleting the content by variously arguing that 1)The links to the sources are broken (they are not); 2)The articles use different names for the school (this is because there are indeed different translations for the school's name, as stated in the article); 3) That the sources are "POV" (I don't know what this is supposed to mean in this context); or 4) "Espionage can not be trained in universities" (according to three RS, it is).
I'll looking for third party feedback to weigh in on the inclusion of the above material. Homunculus ( duihua) 12:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Here are some of the quotes. Note that the Stratfor report also contains some graphical elements that show the position of the university in the MSS bureaucracy here [5]. Also note that these authors use three different translations for the institute, but they are all referring to the same thing, that is the Guoji guanxi xueyuan.
If you're wondering about the difference between the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of State Security, they are different entities. The latter was not created until 1983 under Deng Xiaoping, and assumed a number of responsibilities of the Ministry of Public Security. Therefore, the Guoji guanxi xueyuan was not initially created by the MSS, but it is now run by the MSS (according to the Stratfor report), and is where MSS intelligence personal (and undercover Xinhua intelligence agents, apparently) receive their training. Homunculus ( duihua) 02:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
There are several other reliable sources that support the claim. The Jamestown foundation's contribution is actually quite redundant. Still, I find your rationale troublesome. Would you have the same objections over a statement that originated with, say, a left-leaning organization like the Brookings Institution? Or if the claim came from Minxin Pei of the obviously pro-American Carnegie Endowment? It's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, yet the crux of your argument seems to be that a political bias or a pro-American bias renders an institutional or individual prone to deception. If those were the criteria for a reliable source, we would really be tying our hands. Would you still object if the author had been someone with more notoriety, like Willy Lam (one of the Jamestown Foundation's Senior Fellows, and also a well regarded China analyst)? You have yet to illustrate why this particular author or institution would have reason to lie about the affiliations of an obscure Beijing university, or should otherwise be regarded as not trustworthy when reporting on China. Given the presence of multiple additional sources that point to the MSS connection, I find it confounding that you would apply a non-neutral tag to the article because one of the sources is a right-leaning think tank. Per Noleander, I sought a compromise with you by mentioning the names of the sources in line. What further solutions (hopefully based on WP policy or guidelines) do you propose? Homunculus ( duihua) 12:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
This is exhausting. Look, as a matter of principle, I don't like being bullied into removing sources that are, in my estimation, scholarly and credible. But I am going to remove it, along with the non-neutral tag. I assume this will satisfy you. Homunculus ( duihua) 16:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that a new editor has moved the information from Stratfor and Jamestown Foundation out of the lede and into a section titled "Controversy." A controversy is defined by the presence of a debate (often a public and protracted one). The issue of the university's MSS affiliation does not seem to satisfy that definition; all we have are reliable sources identifying the University as being bureaucratically subordinate to the MSS, and we don't have reliable sources contesting that point.
As to the claim that the article is unbalanced, an editor had expressed concerns during the RfC that Jamestown is anti-Communist/pro-American, and suggested that this might compromise its ability to report truthfully and objectively on the institutions of the PRC. I disagreed, but regardless, Noleander and Silktork proposed that the solution was simple transparency, citing the sources of the claims in the text. This has been done. Why do concerns about neutrality persist? And can the editor who flagged the article please elaborate on how they feel greater neutrality could be achieved? Homunculus ( duihua) 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
What does the 2008 Olympic game singer
Liu Huan have to do espionage?
Admick (
talk) 01:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
There are several sources in the article indicating this university is under the control of China's Ministry of Education. The university admits students through the college entrance exam, teaches students internationl studies, foreign language and offer undergraduate and graduate degrees. Graduates from this school become pop singers, business executives, professors and scholars, enviromentalists and government officials. It also trains foreigners in China Chinese language. All these facts about this school contradicts with espionage training. I think MSS should train their sepionage after hiring them, not train them in a university. The sources used by Homunculus is groundless POVs contradicts with common sense.
Admick (
talk) 12:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
So you now are admitting there is a debate and controversy. Then put your controversy into a controversy section not the lede. The good source you claimed [A. Doak Barnett, "The making of foreign policy in China: structure and process," Westview Press, 1985] only mentions this school in China's foreign policy context. Why doesn't it talk about espionage if this is a epionage training school? What does Police Department do with International Relations. Your source are ridiculous. You are POV pushing, biased toward radical groundless POV claims. What are the factual evidences can you provide to support these claims? Otherwise, I consider this macilous and POV.
Admick (
talk) 14:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, the students in this school are only students NOT spies. CIA hire spies from all schools, so does MSS in China. Students graduated from this school certainly can become spies if hired by MSS. But so do college graudates from other Chinese schools. The school itself is certainly not a CIA-like intelligence organization with different intelligence offices. It only has academic departments. MSS and CIA don't need to openly eatablish a univertiy to train spies. They only need to establish an internal secrete training organization to do so. I think CIA and MSS should be highly selective when hiring spies. It is imposible for MSS to hire so many spies each year through college entrance examination. Some of the words and sources in this article are too biased, and need to be removed for neutrality purpuose. 钉钉 ( talk) 09:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
It is totally malicous for you to delete the following contents from this article:
As for the contraversy, Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Neutral point of view is "non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Articles should be written in an impartial tone, "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view". Section title "Alleged ties to Chinese intelligence services" and the sentence in the lead paragraph "The university is linked to the Ministry of State Security, the country's principal civilian intelligence agency, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and others." are taking stand only on one side of the story. It is violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -- EditQ ( talk) 08:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
References
@ Amigao@Abovfold Contens in Wikipedia needs to be backed by reliable sources. Source information also must not be distorted.
--- EditQ ( talk) 12:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@ User:Amigao: UIR was authorized to offer Ph.D. in 2021 [6]. The statement that UIR has joint Ph.D.is inaccurate and the source used to back this view "阳光高考" is not a reliable source. EditQ ( talk) 13:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)