Talk:University of International Relations

message: 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.
:Many Chinese universities have some language centers for foreign students. Your statement is out of proportion. Eiiaia 15:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

message: I just reverted an edit that removed the following paragraph: 
:The University is run by the Ministry of State Security, and is where most of the Ministry's personnel receive their training, having been recruited out of high school on the basis of high test scores, language ability, and a lack of prior international experience.
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)
replies: text: No, it is an alternate translation of 国际关系学院. The International Relations Institute is what the school has traditionally been called in English, and it is now changed to the University of International Relations. There are a number of different translations for it, all referring to the same thing. The Stratfor report referenced actually uses different names interchangeably, including the University of International Relations ("Training for most MSS intelligence officers begins at the Beijing University of International Relations").  So, getting back to your key argument that the sources use a different name - well, sure, they use the former name, but they also use the current name. Nothing wrong with that. As to your other objection that the links were broken, I assume you are backing off that argument. Are you going to restore the content you deleted? Homunculus (duihua) 16:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another source, and another translation:  "...the College of International Affairs (Guoji guanxi xueyuan) was established to train intelligence personnel for the Investigation Department and (undercover) at Xinhua New Agency." (David Shambaugh, "China's International Relations Think Tanks: Evolving Structure and Process," China Quarterly, Volume 171, Sept 2002.)Homunculus (duihua) 16:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Sigh. I am not POV pushing. I am pushing a fact, supported by multiple sources, and you are vainly arguing against it. I will not speculate as to why you are doing this. I'm going to add the content back in. If you remove it again, I'll invite some third parties to evaluate. Homunculus (duihua) 12:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSS connection in lede  

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: It is totally malicous for you to delete the following contents from this article:
*The university began to offer Ph.D. in Politics from the year 2021.
*"Notable alumni" section that evry college and university has in their articles. All the listed names have their own individual articles with sources.
*Sources supporting the view that the school is under Ministry of Education, China
**
**
**
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)
replies: text: , if you want to list names of living persons, you must have WP:BLPSOURCES and they must be WP:RS. Also, why would you think that MSS linkages, sourced with WP:RS, are somehow a "controversy" at all? Amigao (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point. You had never raised any WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:RS concerns on the talk pages of the listed artiles. These articles are generally fine and backed with reliable sources. For the controversty, there are also reliable sources supporting the view that the school is managed by the Education Ministry. But you maliciously deleted them and wrote in partial tone supporting only one-side of the story. That's violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. EditQ (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing controversial per se about MSS linkages. Something that is not a "controversy" shouldn't be called as such. Also, you need WP:BLPSOURCES in this article if you intend to name living persons. Amigao (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what makes your edits partial. The reliable sources you deleted also shows there is nothing controversial that the school is under the education department. "Australian Strategic Policy Institute" is an Australian government funded organization, its information is only reliable to people with anti-China sentiments. EditQ (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , you probably should stick to WP:GREL sources and avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Amigao (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:GREL, Australian Strategic Policy Institute is biased and NOT a reliable source: “There is consensus that use of Australian Strategic Policy Institute should be evaluated for due weight and accompanied with in text attribution when used. Editors consider the Australian Strategic Policy Institute to be a biased or opinionated source that is reliable in the topic area of Australian defence and strategic issues but recommend care as it is a think tank associated with the defence industry in Australia and the Australian Government.”. EditQ (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly why it is used with WP:INTEXT and alongside other academic WP:RS that reach similar conclusions. Amigao (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your problem is that you only WP:INTEXT one-side of the story and maliciously deleting WP:RS that support the other side of the story. EditQ (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Section name "Alleged ties to Chinese intelligence services" is no different from "Controversy", is should be renamed to a more neutral name like "Affiliation". In the lede, relevant affiliation information with biased sources should either be deleted or neutralized with information and sources supporting the opposite opinion. EditQ (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , care to discuss why you want to add a statement already in the body to the WP:LEAD when it fails MOS:LEADREL and is WP:UNDUE? - Amigao (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything in the lead is already in the body. The source is reliable. Offering Ph.D. is a milestone event in this school's history and make the statement in the lead complete.EditQ (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

text: @User:Amigao Researchers make creative claims to publish, otherwise they perish. Researchers' views are just like that of Australian Strategic Policy Institute are biased. There is no reason for you to delete the opposing views in the lede. EditQ (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: @[[User:Amigao]]

message: @Amigao@Abovfold  Contens in Wikipedia needs to be backed by reliable sources. Source information also must not be distorted. 
*This source is dated 2020-05-29. It is outdated because per the latest news, this school was authorized to offer PhD program on its own in July 2021. In addition, neither of these two sources say that this school is "directly adjacent to MSS".I added a need-source maitainenace template for such Original research. It is a vandalism to remove Wiki maitainenace template.
*This source was published by  Ningbo city human resource department. It is not by China central government. It is appropriate to add "Some Zhejiang local governments". 
--- EditQ (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not have reliable sources, you have a Sohu blog post which is not RS. Taken to its logical endpoint, your preference for recency in sourcing would mean that even if the New York Times ran a front page expose on this obvious MSS front tomorrow morning, so long as the Chinese government denied it in the afternoon, one should prefer the Chinese government line. - Abovfold (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the sources indicate that "CICIR, the 11th Bureau of the MSS". It is totally your original research. Besides, this article is about UIR not CICIR. EditQ (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You either don’t understand or are being intentionally obstreperous and I’m thinking it’s the latter at this point. I have given you two page and quote cited sources now, both of which also already appeared as the first two citations on CICIRs page. It is of course notable and relevant to find out that this "school" has collaborative programs with spy agency subsidiaries, and it was not my WP:OR. - Abovfold (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distortion of sources and Original Research 

message: @User:Amigao: UIR was authorized to offer Ph.D. in 2021. 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)
replies: text: Please do not blank content, as you did regarding China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, without an explanation. Amigao (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I made explanations in my edit summary. The statement that "The UIR has offered a collaborative degree program with the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations" is inaccurate, and backed by an unreliable source "阳光高考". There is really nothing should be prsented in the lead about China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations. It is not an article about Information about China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.EditQ (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to review WP:SUMMARYNO. Also, unexplained content blanking is considered disruptive. Amigao (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "阳光高考" is not an acceptable reliable source, and other sources don't support the " collaborative degree program" statement. EditQ (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Ph.D.