Talk:Nanjing University

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The central university during imperial China era and the imperial university in Nanking[edit]

What's the relationship between imperial central university and other central institutes and schools? For example, what's the relationship between Nanking Imperial University and Hwa-lin Hsue-shing in Southern Song Dynasty? What's the relationship between Nanking Imperial University and Shih-lin Kuan (Studio of Assembled Scholars) in Liang Dynasty, as cited in the book "Education in Traditional China: A History" by Thomas H. C. Lee? I'm astonished that the book says there were various central and local schools in Chou Dynasty, and in Han Dynasty the central school Tai Hsueh (literally Grand School, a kind of imperial university) was established in Chang-An (Hsi-An), initially with only 50 students and soon during Wang Mang era it became a great university with a large campus, having more than 10,000 residential units, rooms, (legal) courts and even markets where students bought and sold books, musical instruments and other items, with more than 30,000 students during East Han Dynasty. However, later in Southern Tsi Dynasty the imperial university in Nanking only admits 150~200 students. How did these changes happen? Why the Imperial Nanking University declined and primarily only admit students preparing for civil service examinations in late Ming Dynasty? Why most traditional schools in imperial China did not directly extend to be modern schools during late Tsing Dynasty? - Tahsuey (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weasel wordage[edit]

How does the term "is one of the oldest and most prestigious and selective institutions of higher learning in China", without attribution, not meet the definition of weasel wordage? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly agree that it is poorly written. However, it does not meet the definition of weasel words, which is: "statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite or stronger in the way they are made." Some examples of weasel wording given in the MoS are the following: "some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says." If you don't like the way the sentence is worded, why not fix it? Sunray (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either I misread that, or it used to mean something else. Anyway, it does fit our current definition of WP:PEACOCK. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the wording. I did note several sources that called Nanjing "prestigious," but as you object, I've removed it :) Sunray (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you found a third-party source, then it's no longer a peacock term. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Nanjing University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?[edit]

The history section of this article is highly dubious. The university itself does not claim to have such a long history - [1], therefore how the article manage to push the history back to a 3rd century institution into this is just odd. The history section of the article is unsourced and does not show how the older institution(s) might be related to Nanjing University, therefore it has all the appearance of original research. Just because other institutions existed in earlier eras does not mean that they are related. Hzh (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a lot of these descriptions are about Taixue and Guozijian, which is not directly connected to the institution itself; a brief mention is fine, but the content is highly misleading at the current state. Alex Shih (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there had been some considerable discussion above. The claim appears to have come from a 1937 book, the claim however is still highly dubious - it appears to be just someone connecting different institutions without a clear reason, it would be the equivalent of me looking through history books randomly looking for people with similar surnames and then constructing a genealogy based solely on that, i.e. construction a history that is likely to be entirely imaginary. Hzh (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not only 1937 book. At least I know other verions, e.g., 國立中央大學沿革史 pulished in 1930. The content is similiar. That's the evolutional history. -Ginlinglang (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read all information provided. It's surely not original research. The citations show that during the period of Republic of China in mainland, the university officially recognize the ancient history before Qing dynasty. -Ginlinglang (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current university no longer claims such as a long history, look up their website. The older claim by their predecessor is entirely spurious. Hzh (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The history is fact. -Ginlinglang (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not recognised by Nanjing University itself as part of their history. Hzh (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was recognised. -Ginlinglang (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The recognition of evolutional history is just about antitude[edit]

The recognition of evolutional history is just about attitude. For example, presently Nanjing University in mainland China takes the founding year of Sanjiang Normal School established in Qing dynasty as the university's founding year, while National Central University in Taiwan takes the founding year of Nanjing Higher Normal School established in Republic of China as the university's founding year, but actually the National Central University and Nanjing University were the same school during Republic of China in mainland, and now they recognize different founding years. The reason is differences in attitudes. The National Central University during Republic of China in mainland, e.g., the evolutional history book 國立中央大學沿革史 published officially at the time, recognized National Southeastern University, Nanjing Higher Normal School, Liangjiang Normal School, Sanjiang Normal School and the national schools since Kingdom of Wu as its predecessors. In other words, Nanjing University (National Central University) formerly in Republic of China officially recognized the ancient history from Kingdom of Wu, to Qing dynasty, and to Republic of China. As recorded, in 1954, several years after National Central University renamed Nanjing University, the university officially set the founding year of Sanjiang Normal School as the university's founding year. Just changes of attitudes, related with political-related/historical views. It's proper for article to record full views. -Ginlinglang (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can see it only as what was then a minor university trying to puff itself up with a grander history. The current Nanjing University does not claim such a grand history because it doesn't need to, and that is their current stance. It is not for you to tell them what their history is. Hzh (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your view. -Ginlinglang (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is the view of Nanjing University is that it originated in the early 20th century as Sanjiang Normal School, nothing about any previous existence over a thousand years ago. Like I said, look in their website and read their history [2]. Don't tell the university what their history is. Hzh (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of the views. Recognizing ancient predecessors was the the view of Nanjing University (National Central University). -Ginlinglang (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides National Central University, other predecessors of Nanjing University during Republic of China, including National Southeastern University and Nanjing Higher Normal School, also recognized ancient predecessors. Actually, among people of the time, and also now, the school was/is referred to as Nanyong (南雍) or other ancient names of imperial Nanjing University. -Ginlinglang (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Central University is not the current Nanjing University, and what it or any other university universities thought is completely irrelevant to the current view of Nanjing University. Like I said, stop telling Nanjing University what its view should be. Hzh (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
National Central University is a former name of Nanjing University, so its history is part of Nanjing University history and its views are/were part of Nanjing University views. -Ginlinglang (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And what it thought is irrelevant to what the current Nanjing University thinks. What is it with you that you want the current university to think that way you should? Hzh (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to argue? I'm discussing how to write the article. -Ginlinglang (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should not write something that the current university does not recognise to be true. Hzh (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should, surely full record, including current and past. Nobody should prevent others providing more knowledge and full views. -Ginlinglang (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No! You should never present something not recognised by the current university as something true. If, hypothetically, someone or some institution during the Japanese occupation era try to make a false claim that the Nanjing massacre did not take place, that should not be allowed to be become part of Nanjing history. Just because someone claims something to be true in the past does not make it so. In this case, there is nothing to link the older institutions with the current one, only unsubstantiated claim by National Central University. You have to show that there is an actual link with the past to say that they are the predecessors. Hzh (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
False claim can also be recorded, and that's just a kind of attitude, e.g., we can say that "Some groups of Japanese right wing claim Nanjing massacre did not take place", this is a kind of objective description, and the description does not say Nanjing massacre did not take place. Attitude is attitude, fact is fact. Your view is just your view. You think Nanjing massacre did not take place or Nanjing University's historical claims were false, that's just your view, or a kind of view. -Ginlinglang (talk) 4:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It is the current view of the present Nanjing University. If you want to add a false claim, then you must also say that there is no evidence for the claim, otherwise it is WP:UNDUE and lacking in WP:NPOV violating a few Wikipedia policies. Hzh (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The current article actually already violates WP:WEIGHT as it gives too much prominence to institutions that had no clear link to the current university, and should be trimmed. Hzh (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's just you think it's a false claim, just your view. Actually, current Nanjing University's offcial claim, the claim that the founding year of Sanjiang Normal School is the university's founding year, is obviously false or at least can not be proved as the only correct claim, although the claim needs to be recorded. -Ginlinglang (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, the current Taiwan's National Central University's official claim, the claim that the founding year of Nanjing Higher Normal School is the university's founding year, also cannot be proved as the only correct claim. In terms of only recognizing the history of Republic of China, it can say that Nanjing Higher Normal School is the university's earliest predecessor. -Ginlinglang (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you are claiming you know better than Nanjing University. Nanjing can certainly prove what their origin is, since there are direct connections between the various institutions it recorded. Nothing more to add, given that you refused to accept the official history as given by the current Nanjing University. What you believe however is irrelevant, you cannot add something that is not supported by real evidence. Hzh (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? So you are claiming the current Nanjing University know Nanjing University history better than the predecessors of Nanjing University? -Ginlinglang (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. The current university can demonstrate direct links between the different institution starting from 1902, the previous one cannot, only unsubstantiated claim about an ancient history. There is such a thing called evidence, otherwise you might also believe that Nanjing massacre did not happened.n Hzh (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your view. The claims are just atitudes, views. View is view, fact is fact. -Ginlinglang (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for views, current Nanjing University in mainland China and National Central University in Taiwan, sharing the same origin, currently take different years as founding year, but historical fact is the same. -Ginlinglang (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to record related notable facts and different notable views. -Ginlinglang (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the exchange above, I don't think you know the difference between views and facts. Hzh (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your view. -Ginlinglang (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanjing_University&oldid=1194272435"