Talk:University of International Relations

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)

MSS connection in lede

I just reverted an edit that removed the following paragraph:

The University is run by the Ministry of State Security,[1] 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.[2]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Connection to China's Ministry of State Security

Over the last several days, a user has repeatedly deleted the following from the lede of the article:

The University is connected to the Ministry of State Security, and is where most of the Ministry's intelligence 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.

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)

The Jamestown Foundation and Stratfor are probably not reliable sources. Saying that the Institute is "connected with" the Ministry is too vague. What is its connection? Also, Stratfor does not say the university recruits students with "a lack of prior international experience", but students "with a lack of foreign contacts". I cannot read the China Quarterly article so I cannot comment on it. The school's website btw does not say that it is connected with the ministry,[4] but claims to be part of Peking University. TFD (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• A couple of the sources I have seen state that it is "run by" the MSS (as opposed to the MoE). If that's less vague, we can say that. At the very least, however, the school was established to train MSS and other intelligence agents.
• The school that is connected to Peking University is the School of International Studies. It is a department within the university, and is different from the Guoji guanxi xueyuan.
• The Guoji guanxi xueyuan's website doesn't say it's run by the MSS either, and that should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the opacity of the MSS.
• I would contend that Stratfor and Jamestown should certainly be regarded as reliable sources. One is a private intelligence company that is regularly cited by the largest media outlets as an authority on intelligence issues, and the other is a DC think tank whose journal publications are peer-reviewed. Can you explain why you don't think their information is reliable? Homunculus (duihua) 21:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• The Stratfor report says that the university recruits partly on the basis of a "lack of foreign contacts or travel." I paraphrased to "lack of prior international experience," as that seemed to me to capture the essential point, but in the interest of accuracy, we can just quote the report verbatim if you think that's better.
• A couple other sources to look at which confirm this connection are Gerald Chan's 1998 book "International studies in China: an annotated bibliography," and David Shambaugh's most recent article "International relations studies in China: history, trends, and prospects," published in the journal International Relations of the Asia-Pacific (May 2011). Homunculus (duihua) 22:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Could someone supply some quotes from the sources, so that editors such as myself can look at them and provide an opinion. The sources should discuss the relationship between the Universy and the Ministry. Please type-in the quotes from the sources here in the Talk page (links to Google books are not very useful for an RfC). Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:57, 1 July 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.

• "...During the 1980s, Geng served in the MSS-run Beijing International Relations Institute and the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR)"

• "Training for most MSS intelligence officers begins at the Beijing University of International Relations. This is a key difference in the Chinese approach to recruiting intelligence officers. The MSS taps university-bound students prior to their university entrance exams, choosing qualified students with a lack of foreign contacts or travel to make sure they haven’t already been compromised."

• “In 1964, after a tour of Africa, during which he was impressed by the diplomats he met, Zhou Enlai ordered the establishment of several colleges and university departments to focus on international affairs. The College of Foreign Affairs (Waiguo Xueyuan) and the First Foreign Languages Institute (Yi Wai) were established to train staff for the Foreign Ministry and Xinhua News Agency, the College of International Affairs (Guoji guanxi xueyuan) was established to train intelligence personnel for the Investigation Department and (undercover) at Xinhua News Agency, and the international politics departments were established at Peking University, Fudan University and People’s University. […] [The Institute of Taiwan Studies’] location adjacent to the College of International Affairs, and the fact that several of its staff come from the College, are further indications of its Ministry of State Security links.”

• “Government agencies such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of State Security, the International Liaison Department of the CCP Central Committee, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences all set up their own centers for international studies. … In 1965, the Institute of International Relations (Guoji Guanxi Xueyuan) was formally established under the Ministry of Public Security. (Formerly, it was a school set up in 1949 to train foreign affairs cadres and was merged with the Foreign Affairs College in 1961). A teaching and research group in IR theory was formed at the Institute. The call for the establishment of an IR theory with Chinese characteristics under the guiding principle of Marxism was first made at this time.”

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)

FourDeuces: You say "The Jamestown Foundation and Stratfor are probably not reliable sources." - could you provide some specifics why those sources might be biased in regard to this University/Ministry. If they are demonstrably biased, what do you think of including the material but worded something like "Jamestown Foundation and Stratfor claim that the University and Ministry are linked ..."? If they are not biased, there appears to be no problem including the proposed material as it is proposed. --Noleander (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• This source by Michael D. Swaine says that MSS and the Institute for International Studies [IIS] are linked.
• This source by Shaun Breslin says that the Institute of Contemporary International Relations is linked to MSS while the Institute for International Studies belong to the Foreign Ministry. This source has the same links.
• I've just spent some time looking at China Institute of Contemporary International Relations and now my head is swimming. There are so many Institutes of varying names that it is hard to pin down what is what and who is linked with who. And different sources say different things! And names change. And translations differ. Aaaargh! I think what has to be presented in cases like this, is: Source A says this, and Source B says this. The article itself shouldn't be making the links, but simply reporting what the sources say, and where the sources differ, then present both versions. So, the article cannot say "The University is connected to the Ministry of State Security", but would need to say: Michael D. Swaine links the Institute for International Studies (IIS) with the Ministry of State Security (MSS),cite while Shaun Breslin links (IIS) with the Foreign Ministry. cite. Good luck! SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SilkTork that, in cases where the sources are ambiguous, or there are translation issues, or the sources are not unanimous and clear, it is safest to simply name the sources in the body of the article, as described above by myself and SilkTork. --Noleander (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, and I'm sorry that there are so many Chinese schools with virtually identical names. Let me try to clarify. The China Institute of Contemporary Relations (Zhongguo xiandai guoji guanxi yanjiusuo) is linked to the MSS, but (believe it or not) is not the same thing as the University of International Relations (Guoji guanxi xueyuan), which is also linked to the MSS. Note that both of them appear in this org chart of the MSS. As to the Michael Swaine source, it states that "the most significant agencies are attached to the Ministry of State Security (MSS), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFa), and the Xinhua News Agency. They include the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR)...the Institute of International Studies (IIS), the International Policy Research Office," blah blah blah. I believe his sentence structure here is meant to imply a respective relationship, which means that the CICIR is attached to the MSS, the ISS is attached to the MoFa, and so forth. So I don't think there's any conflict here.

Moving forward, since no one has demonstrated a bias in the Stratfor or Jamestown report, is there agreement about adding back in the sentence above? I can also add something into the body of the article that describes the university's history and evolution from 1949 to present.Homunculus (duihua) 13:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I think you can add back in the sentence about association with the Ministry, but - as suggested above - include the names of the sources in the sentence ("Persons A and B state that the University is associated with the Ministry ... "). As for history of the university: of course that material is okay ... be sure to include footnotes per WP:V and WP:RS. --Noleander (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would avoid pro-american and anti-Communist sources, especially when writing about China. Much better to use sources such as China Quarterly. Also, "lack of prior international experience" implies that they are seeking students they can indoctrinate, while "lack of foreign contacts" implies that they are seeking students who cannot be turned into double agents. TFD (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD: an anti-communist bias may shape the nature of the articles that an organization like the Jamestown foundation pursues, but they are still beholden to facts.Homunculus (duihua) 17:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the paragraph back in, but changed "lack of prior international experience" to "lack of international travel or contacts." Per Noleander's suggestion, I also qualified the claim that it is run by the MSS by stating the sources inline.Homunculus (duihua) 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not assume the accuracy of their "facts", especially when scoring political points. TFD (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We have multiple sources stating a connection between the MSS and this institution, and no reliable sources that dispute that the connection. I am not sure what kind of political points you think the author of the Jamestown Foundation report is trying to score, or with whom, but I think it's safe to assume that there are no incentives to lie about something like this if he has any interest in prolonging his career as a China analyst. If you are going to maintain that there is a neutrality problem here, could you please provide some evidence? Some opposing views? Something other than a personal opinion that one (of four) sources is biased? Homunculus (duihua) 02:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Then use a reliable source, not a statement from a neo-conservative think tank. The trouble with sources like that is one cannot tell whether or not what they say is true, as was painfully evident in the run-up to the War in Iraq. TFD (talk) 03:53, 9 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)

I would never add a partisan think tank to an article as a source. How would we resolve a difference between the facts presented by the Jamestown Foundation and those presented by a think tank supported by Chinese intelligence? Would editors be happy with using a liberal thinktank as a source that classical economics caused the Great Depression? Ten years ago, would be be happy stating as a fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? What makes a source reliable btw is more the credibility of the publication than the writer. The fact that Newt Gingrich's academic writings may be used as reliable sources does not mean that a political speech he makes automatically is considered as reliable as a network news story. TFD (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Newt Gingrich has to do with it. Please try to avoid going so far off-topic; it really muddies the water. The examples I provided above were intended to point out that very well respected China scholars work for think tanks that could be considered partisan or "pro-American." These individuals, and the publications of these think tanks, are nonetheless regarded as scholarly sources. Think tank journals are peer-reviewed, and their researchers often hold positions at universities. In the case of large organizations like Brookings or Carnegie, their publications are as good as the best university presses, in terms of the academic rigor and authority they carry. The Jamestown Foundation's China Brief is fairly widely read in policy and scholarly circles, which suggests that it is regarded as credible on these issues.

Now, I agree that some caution should be exercised when dealing with certain think tanks, particularly when it comes to how we regard the more subjective or interpretive assertions that they may arrive at. On Wikipedia, if you have scholarly sources like a think tank issuing some opinion that is at odds with other sources, it is my understanding that the dispute can be resolved simply by providing the names of the sources in-text and presenting the different interpretations. We have done that here, even in the absence of dissenting views.

I'm trying to resolve this so we can get rid of the non-neutral tag. The information that is cited to Jamestown is also cited to Stratfor, and the conclusion that the University is affiliated with the MSS is shared by the other sources. You have still not demonstrated why this source is so problematic on this particular issue that the entire article should be regarded as non-neutral for using it as one reference among many. Please be more specific. Homunculus (duihua) 14:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Think tanks are set up especially to promote specific viewpoints, do not use peer-review and are not as widely respected as the academic press. Certainly known scholars write for them, but there is a difference between a scholar writing for the academic press and pushing an ideological position in fora that do not restrain polemical writing. Gingrich is a good example of someone whose academic works on the environment are rs, but whose comments in editorials are not. BTW if you accept an organization that has been accused of being a branch of U.S. intelligence and disinformation as a reliable source, then you should have no problem accepting the University of International Relations and the Chinese Ministry of State Security as rs as well. TFD (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that "there is a difference between a scholar writing for the academic press and pushing an ideological position in fora that do not restrain polemical writing." Where we disagree is on the question of whether this article in the Jamestown Foundation's China Brief is of a scholarly nature (I say it is) or whether it is ideologically driven agitprop (as you seem to believe. By the way, I don't want to delve into anti-CIA conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't give too much credence claim that the Jamestown foundation seeks to promulgate disinformation at the behest of the U.S. intelligence agencies). One way or another, the source is stated in-text, and the claim is supported by multiple other sources. What is so problematic about it?Homunculus (duihua) 15:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So if sources claim that an organization set up by the director of the CIA and employing people who were paid by him is a "branch of American intelligence", that is a "conspiracy theory", while if these people claim that the University is run by Chinese intelligence, then that is a "fact". I do not by the way "believe" anything. What the Jamestown Institute writes may or may not be true. I have no way of knowing, which is why I would prefer to use reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:08, 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)

Another approach is to present the Jamestown Foundation's viewpoint as just that: a viewpoint of a major conservative organization. Thus, the Jamestown Foundation would be used as a source for its own opinion, not for a fact about the university. So, while this may be unacceptable: The University is a major training facility for MSS personnel [source is JF], this is appropriate: Conservative think tank Jamestown Foundation regards the University as a training facility for the MSS. --Noleander (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and agreed. But what to do about the unconfirmed (and, as of yet, SPA) user Admick who is deleting sourced content about the University's history and affiliations and making reversions without discussion? Homunculus (duihua) 06:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. I also agree with Noleander & SilkTork. Attribute the viewpoints, and put it out there. Readers can decide for themselves. As for Admick, since this has been happening for a while, editors can directly contact the user and discuss the edits. Hopefully edit wars can be avoided. See WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and related material on the page to handle the issue.Bstephens393 (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversy?

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)

As you said people are expressing doubts about the accuracy of your sources. You'd better put such information in the controversy section. Admick (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What does the 2008 Olympic game singer Liu Huan have to do espionage? Admick (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I am not going to mention in this article that a Wikipedia editor expressed reservations about the partisanship of the Jamestown foundation. If there is a reliable source that disputes the MSS claim, that is notable. But so far, no one has provided a sound reason to doubt the veracity of this claim, which is made by multiple reliable sources.
• I don't know what Liu Huan has to do with espionage. The article has nothing to say on the matter. Not all people trained at the University are MSS agents, and presumably not all MSS agents receive their international affairs education there. The article states what the sources state: that the University was established in 1965 for the purpose of training intelligence personnel, that it became subordinate to the MSS in the early 1980s, and that it trains most MSS agents. Homunculus (duihua) 02:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Admick: I reverted your changes, because they added a POV tag to the article. You cannot add a POV tag without explaining on the Talk page the justification and remedy for the tag; and - in this case - referring to the POV discussion above and explaining what outstanding issues you see. When editing controversial topics like this, please discuss all changes in the Talk page before making them, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of his edits consisted of deleting sourced content, restoring the POV tag, and pretty dramatic (and undiscussed) restructuring. But he did add one bit of useful information to the article, so I can restore that. Homunculus (duihua) 15:02, 10 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)

• This is not the forum to voice your personal opinions about how the MSS should train and recruit intelligence personnel.
• It should come as no surprise that an institution that is linked to the MSS does not like to publicly advertise this fact, particularly if it is involved in recruiting foreign students and organizing foreign exchanges. That the university does not openly state this affiliation is not proof that it does not exist. The sources claiming a MoE affiliation are all Chinese government-run websites. Several scholarly reliable sources have written of the MSS affiliation, and this is notable.
• I have modified the article's lede to explicitly address the debate surrounding the University's affiliations
• I undid most of your other edits, which consisted of removing sourced information from the history section, replacing it with unsourced or poorly sourced information, and adding a POV tag without sound rationale. Homunculus (duihua) 13:42, 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)

Gesus! even those foreigners study Chinese in this school are recruited by MSS for espionage? Are you going to say this is al-Qaeda terrorist training base next ?!! Admick (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to say whatever reliable sources say. That's how this works. Sources are not "POV" or "ridiculous" because you disagree with them. Also, as I've said before, not all people trained at the University are MSS agents, and presumably not all MSS agents receive their international affairs education there.Homunculus (duihua) 14:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If we can find a book or article from the university press then we can assert the connection as a fact. (If it is untrue then readers must find equally valid sources disputing it.) But we should avoid using sources that are notorious for disinformation about Communism or any other challenge to U.S. government interests. Past analysis includes such observations as Soviet military superiority in the 1980s, Soviet control of the international terrorist network, Gorbachev's secret plan to expand Communism, Saddam Hussein's (who was behind 9/11) ability to launch an attack on the U.S. with "weapons of mass destruction", etc. TFD (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Shambaugh's article in the China Quarterly asserts the connection. If you have good academic database access and can get the original article, I recommend referring to the organizational chart it provides, in which you find both this university and CICIR connected to the MSS. The history as described in some of the other scholarly sources (as first being subordinate to the MPS, and later the MSS) is consistent with this. The org chart in the Stratfor report also places the university as being under the bureaucratic structure of the MSS.

Anyways, I appreciate your concern about this. You may like to know that User:Admick, User:Antirumor, and User:Watner were all found to be sock puppets, so the controversy around this page is largely a contrivance.Homunculus (duihua) 11:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

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)

@User:Amigao

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)

EditQ, 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)

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)

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)

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)

EditQ, you probably should stick to WP:GREL sources and avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Amigao (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

EditQ, 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)

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)

@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)

References

Distortion of sources and Original Research

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Ph.D.

@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)

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)

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)

You might want to review WP:SUMMARYNO. Also, unexplained content blanking is considered disruptive. Amigao (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"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)