Talk:National Chung Cheng University

Needs improvement

This article reads like a promotional brochure. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism on how it can be approved.

That the university was named after Chiang Kai-shek is a fact relevant to the history of the university. I don't see how the origin of the university name should be kept out.--Jiang (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

1. What portions, specifically, read like a promotional brochure? 2. Point to paradigm cases of university wikipedia pages that you believe exemplify quality, i.e. not academic boosterism. 3. After reading the references listed in the article, indicate what specific claim you believe to be unsubstantiated. 4. The university was indeed named after "Chiang Kai-shek", though not under the name "Kai-shek." The man had multiple names. But the reasons why this historical fact need not be mentioned are: (a) Facts are infinite, so one always chooses the most significant. (b) It is a fact that in the mid-1980s in Taiwan invoking the name of Chiang Kai-shek was a politically expedient way to get funding. But political expedience involved in a university's founding is hardly relevant to its current status. To claim otherwise is to committ the genetic fallacy. (c) Most universities don't bother to mention that they are named after a city, or a state, or a bridge, or a person. And, (d) Chiang Kai-shek is a historical personage whose name invokes strong feelings, across the political spectrum. None of those feelings are relevant to the university. To highlight his name here can easily create misimpressions about the content and the academic standing of the university. Respectfully, Jack Shaefer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Shaefer (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Example of boosterism: "National Chung Cheng University has taken a leadership role among universities in Taiwan in other respects as well: notably, it has pioneered research into and the pedagogy of such diverse disciplines as opto-mechatronics, criminology, and seismology. The university also has highly ranked Colleges of Law, Management, and Engineering" Without specifics, these statements are opinion, not fact.
2. Example of quality articles: Dartmouth College, Duke University, Michigan State University
3. see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Everything that is not common knowledge should be cited.
4. If you think the university was named after CKS specifically to get funding then say so in the article, don't delete that fact. But this claim will require verification which I believe is hard to attain. see Editing policy: preserve information and Wikipedia is not censored. The namesake of a university is certainly relevant. For example, see Duke_University#History, Dartmouth_College#History, or for another Taiwanese university, National Cheng Kung University. Details will be welcome on when in the planning stages of the university that they decided on the Chung Cheng name, and on any subsequent attempts (if any) by pro-independence parties to have the name changed.--Jiang (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

1. You are correct that I previously deleted the Chiang Kai-shek reference. I was remiss in not promptly providing explanation. Subsequently, I've left it alone. The reason for favoring deletion--to try once again--is that Chiang is a polarizing figure and the university is relatively unknown, even within Taiwan. Highlighting his name, I submit, will engender prejudicial reactions among the casual (majority) reader. If I am correct in this, then, since it is just one among an infinite number of facts that could be cited, it would be fair to leave it out. I am guessing (do correct me if I am in error, but I infer this since you confused CCU and NCCU) that you yourself are not well informed about this institution and that you added Chiang simply because that is one of the few salient points that you could think of. Historical salience tends to influence reader impressions in ways that do not promote a balanced perspective. 2. Your example of boosterism is a good one. Point taken. You might have noticed though that I did not try to omit other examples. I will tend more carefully to diction. 3. The historical point about funding is true (personal communication from some among those involved). But you are correct that textual verification would be impossible to find. At most one could find editorial discussions here and there. I'll only submit that anyone familiar with mid-80s budgetary battles in Taiwan knows this to be true. (Nevertheless, as I previously conceded, I do not doubt that some among the planners actually were sincere in their intention to honor Chiang.) As a final point I'll add, for reasons related to what I've mentioned here, efforts were made to change the name (but not by the pro-independence parties). Politics, bureaucracies, and human emotions are complex, however, so those efforts failed. 4. Where I work I see (on a daily basis) reports concerning academic rankings in Taiwan. These usually concern National Science Council grants and quality publications. I haved added those that I can find on line and that are in English. But most is not publicly available. I think an impartial assessment of that which has already been provided will show that the 5% claim is on target. If it misses the mark by a bit, then we can change it to 7% or 8%. A significant factor is that medical schools produce quantity at a rate unsurpassed even by Colleges of Engineering. And CCU doesn't have a medical school. When medical schools are factored in, I concede that the 5% claim might be a bit of a stretch. One reason I decided to allow language of that type is that I was frankly amazed that many among the famous schools in Taiwan perform so poorly. Chung Cheng, by contrast, performs shockingly well, annually. 5. You are surely correct that this needs to be cleaned up (in accord with Wiki standards) and, where more support can be found, supplied. If I can find the time, I will do so. Thank you for your response. Respectfully, Jack Shaefer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Shaefer (talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

One additional point: I did take the time to check Duke's page, since you believe that to be a model of quality, and since I am quite familiar with that institution. But what I found was just that it is well-manicured, in a way that no doubt conforms well to Wiki's preferred style. I did not see a balanced presentation of material concerning problems the institution has confronted over the years, including its lengthy flirtation with parapsychology, something which is now very much an academic embarrassment. Please don't misunderstand: Duke is an excellent school. No doubt about it. But as with any institution it has had its problems. Its wiki page though is a sanitized version of the school and its history. In a word, if this page counts as a promotional brochure, then so too does Duke's. But I do thank you for calling your concerns to my attention. Respectfully, Jack Shaefer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Shaefer (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Chiang Kai-shek reference is supposed to engender any reaction. The note is placed in the same sentence as the year, so for anyone politically informed enough to care, it has been put in the context of the 1980s when naming something after CKS wouldn't have been a politically controversial move as it would be today. We have it in the history section, and not anywhere else. Every city in Taiwan has a Zhongzheng Rd. - that doesn't mean that Baker Chen, whose shop happens to be on Zhongzheng Rd., has to display a different address just to avoid offending people opposed to CKS. This is something to be understood via context. You are right that I don't know much about the university, but I am familiar with Taiwan and literate in Chinese. I added something I believe to be facially obvious to a Chinese reader, but impossible to discern for an English reader. It is merely stating the obvious. And I believe the namesake of a university to be a relevant, if not important, fact.

The Duke article is a featured article, meaning it went through a lengthy review process by numerous editors before being approved as an example of one of Wikipedia's quality articles. I have not looked at that page in detail - I merely pulled it from the list of featured articles. It is possible for articles to deteriorate somewhat after being promoted to featured article status.--Jiang (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am conceding the issue; I’ll surely leave it untouched. But (1) I think it worth pointing out that your reaction concerning a possible name change exactly reflects my concern: you assume that advocates of name change are Taiwan independence advocates. Some are; some aren’t. Some would have preferred a name change just because they want to avoid a politicized name—better to keep attention focused on the content of the university. (It should also be pointed out that “Taiwan Independence” has many different meanings. On at least one non-trivial meaning, 95% of the citizens of the Republic of China are advocates of Taiwan Independence. When only those whose family members don’t hold foreign passports or residency rights are counted, the number is higher.) (2) National Yang Ming University provides a nice contrast—it is named after the Ming Dynasty poet, Wang Yang Ming, but this fact is not mentioned on their wiki-page, nor on their homepage. Chiang is talked about, because he is a controversial figure. That is all. Were it not for the controversy appending to him and for the concerns about infringement upon Taiwan sovereignty, no one would bother with the name. Moreover, (3) the analogy is misleading: the relationship between a store and its address is far more distant than is the relationship between a university and its name (in this instance). No one bothers to render the many "Chung Cheng" Roads as "Chiang Kai-shek" Roads. And, (4) I did check the other university pages. They are well crafted and informative. But I don’t see in what respect they avoid boosterism. My sincere good wishes. Respectfully, Jack ShaeferJack Shaefer (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User JTIsmael continued to purge the article of ANY reference to late President Chiang Kai-shek after whom the university was named (hate him or love him). No matter if he is a controversial character or not, the fact remains that he is the school's namesake. What is the consensus now, one year after the last post on this issue had been made ? Hsinhai (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I now just find this matter amusing: some people contribute substance to wikipedia articles, while others just promote names, ideologies, or what have you. As I mentioned a year ago, some universities make much of their namesake and others make no mention at all. What's the difference? In this case it seems to be nothing other than an ideological axe to grind, for Chiang Kai-shek had nothing to do with the university. And it is always striking that references to Chiang Kai-shek in these contexts begin with the "late President..." Now wouldn't it be odd to say of a school named after Jefferson or Washington that "this school is named after the late President George Washington or Thomas Jefferson." The intent of inserting "late" seems nothing other than to communicate a reverential attitude, for anyone who knows who he is knows that he died decades ago. (For those whose mother tongue is not Chinese: the Chinese equivalent of "the late President" is a standard way of referring to Chiang Kai-shek by those who hold him in high regard.) The intent of adding "President" reminds of all those non-democratic countries, like the "People's Republic of China," which insert "People" into their title because they are not really representative of the people. Here, emphasizing "president" just reminds that he was never really elected in the way that presidents are elected in democratic countries. Referring to him as a president doesn't make him a president. But do what you will. I simply hope that one day someone who is really associated with CCU will receive a Nobel Prize or a Fields Medal, so that matters of intellectual significance will attract more attention than matters of petty, political ideology.Jack Shaefer (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Jack Shaefer, thanks for your input. I have changed the article from "late President Chiang Kai-shek" to "former President Chiang Kai-shek". Whether Chiang Kai-shek played a role in the university's history is irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. Simply leaving him out however is as biased as that previous version that called him "the late President". It is however clear that Jiang ZhongZheng relates to Chiang Kai-shek and the university was named after him. Again, any personal disdain you may have for him is irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. How about we agree on this: "National Chung Cheng University, named after the former Republic of China President Chiang Kai-Shek was the first public university established after Taiwan's economic boom of the 1980s." Thereby, neither is implied CKS made any special contribution to the university, nor the honorific "late" is used. Hsinhai (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My concern from the beginning has been to keep the focus on matters of substance pertaining to the university. Had I wanted to take gratuitous shots at Chiang Kai-shek I could have replaced "Late President..." with "dead dictator". The latter would be no less true than the former, but the connotations differ greatly, obviously. But such games are not my concern. I don't care what people say about the man. I have wanted to talk about the university as it is. Yes, you have made an appropriate modification, but you never responded to a point I made long ago--facts are infinite, so we are always choosing among those facts that which we want to emphasize, even in encyclopedias. As applied to university namesakes, for the last time, some university's do make much of this; others don't. Is your claim that every university that ignores its namesake is exhibiting bias? I doubt it. Clearly you are not on a crusade to be certain that every university wikipedia page and every university homepage prominently declares their namesake. Your interest is merely the promotion of Chiang Kai-shek and the term, Republic of China. As regards the latter, is that the offical name of the country--yes and no. Taiwan's constitution records it that way, so yes. Do many countries outside of Vatican City recognize it under that name? No. Does the current government insist upon using that name for all official purposes? No. Does the name itself matter, so long as the piece of land and the population referred to is sovereign? No, unless one has some particular ideological axe to grind. And, by the way, in your comment on the other editor who weighed in on Chiang Kai-shek, you said that he or she is wrong about "Chung Cheng". You are correct that in contemporary Taiwan the convention is clear--"Chung Cheng" is everywhere and it is everywhere because Chiang Kai-shek and his followers wanted it that way. Yes, it reflects his adopted name. (For those who are not native speakers of Chinese: "Chiang Kai-shek" reflects the Cantonese version of a name that preceded "Chung Cheng." "Chung Cheng" was not the name given to him at birth.) But that editor, perhaps just by accident, is correct that "chung cheng" has (or at leat had) a meaning prior to its application to Chiang Kai-shek, though to find such usage it is necessary to read older books. Again, do what you will. I haven't cared about this issue for a long time. But in the future you might want to give some thought to the concept "relevance": given that many, perhaps most, univerities ignore their namesakes, why should one insist on inserting Chiang here? Well, just how relevant--compared to an infinite number of facts about the university--is he? Since in the 1980s when funding was granted his son was the president of the ROC during a period of martial law and a (de facto) one-party system was in place, naturally it was just a matter of expedience that the name "Chung Cheng" was chosen. So what does this tell us? My answer is that the man is not sufficiently relevant to warrant attention, especially given that the mention of his name attracts attention in a way that generates more heat than light. But let it go--it was an unhappy fact about Taiwan that when the Chiang family was in power they were elected by a small group of people, all of whom were well paid, and many of whom didn't even bother to live here. It is now an unhappy fact about Taiwan that many who care so much about the title "Republic of China", the legacy of the Chiang family, and the relationship to China live comfortably overseas, with residency or citizenship rights to countries not named China or Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Shaefer (talk • contribs) 09:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say Chung Cheng University ignores its namesake? The university website is quite clear on Chiang Kai-shek: http://ewww.ccu.edu.tw/history.php Hsinhai (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said they do. They do present the standard, bureaucratic representation of the name: the stated purpose (which should not be taken at face value, for reasons given above) at the time was "to commemorate." But even here it is easily ignored, for one would have to seek out the "history sketch" page. It is not prominently placed. It is ignored by nearly every visitor to the homepage. And were that page to be rewritten today it might well be omitted. I said not all universities do so, whether on their homepages or on their wikipedia pages. You said it reflected bias to ignore him. This would only be the case were it generally true that ignoring namesakes reflects bias. But clearly that is not your point. Your point is that, in this particular instance, it reflects bias. But you nowhere explain why. So that is why I questioned you on relevance--facts are infinite, why is this fact sufficiently relevant to be included, especially when placed in so prominent a position (unlike the university homepage). Were someone interested in contributing substantial, independent, verifiable information about the university, and also wanted to contribute to the history section, perhaps explaining the context in which the name "chung cheng" was chosen, that might be relevant (at least as a point of historical interest, to some). But that is not what you are doing. There are too many substantial things (good and bad) going on at this university that are easily ignored. It doesn't benefit from having this albatross hung on its neck. The name is nothing more than a distraction from important issues. And there is no general principle concerning namesakes that would require that he even be mentioned.Jack Shaefer (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

(Hsinhai) and (Jack Shaefer) have had an interesting discussion about a year ago on whether to include Chiang Kai-shek in this article as the namesake of the university or not. While (Hsinhai) insisted on using the form of "late Republic of China President Chiang Kai-shek", (Jack Shaefer) disputed whether Chiang Kai-shek should be included at all and if so, whether using terms such as "the late President" conforms to WP:NPOV.

It seemed the result of the exchange between (Jack Shaefer) and (Hsinhai) was to include Chiang Kai-shek and use the wording "According to the university website, the university was named after Chiang Kai-shek, former President of the Republic of China." This is quite descriptive and neutral, as the university website in fact states that its namesake is Chiang Kai-shek and he was President of the Republic of China.

Recently however, a certain ReconditeX) started to change the wording that was the result of the above discussion, i.e. by adding "mass murderer Chiang Kai-shek", "chief-architect of the White Terror Chiang Kai-shek" to the article. While this may be proper content for the actual Chiang Kai-shek article (although I doubt such blunt statements are tolerated there either), I fail to see any relevancy for an article on a university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiankuo (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

excessive external links

I've commented out the General References section, as it contains far more external links than are recommended by WP:EL. If there are one or two particularly relevant ones which contain material not adequately covered by other sources then they could be added to the External links section. Nick Number (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

List of colleges and departments

I am removing the list of colleges and departments per WP:NOTDIR (point no. 7) and WP:UNIGUIDE: Because Wikipedia is not a directory, do not attempt to list every major, degree, or program offered in this or any section.... Phlar (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.masterstudies.com/universities/Taiwan/National-Chung-Cheng-University/ and http://ewww.ccu.edu.tw/about/campus-environment.php. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)