Talk:Du Gangjian

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Du Gangjian. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707025411/http://www.law.stu.edu.cn/chinese/viewInfo.aspx?flowNo=1377 to http://www.law.stu.edu.cn/chinese/viewInfo.aspx?flowNo=1377

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Neo-Jay mccapra I proposed this article for deletion and would like to inform you in case you wish to make an input before the matter is decided as per Wikipedia policies. --CRau080 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * what article are you talking about? Mccapra (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant the one that this talk page is associated with, i.e. Du Gangjian. --CRau080 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I have added content and sources to prove the notability, and removed Template:Proposed deletion. Hope that's fine with you. Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply and for your edits on this article in response to the issues I raised. It is certainly noteworthy that a dean (whose career path and position per se are not a reason for inclusion in Wikipedia) made such highly controversial claims regarding Western history. The strongest reason for keeping the article may be this "incongruence", so to speak. However, all in all, I remain unconvinced that the article ought to be kept. Being the founder of the "World Civilization Research Association" that sprouts these theories (I have trouble calling these views "research" also in light of the wording in the citations; for example, the word "research" is qualified by "they say" and "supposedly" in the [Vice source cited]) surely gives Du a special role within that Association. But in my view, unless his views have created some impact outside the scope of that Association (and given that there is no Wikipedia article on the Association itself), I would still vote for moving the last chunk of the article to Sinocentrism – others who are more familiar with the topic may suggest a better destination article – and deleting the article at hand.--CRau080 (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, the fact that Professor Du's theories on civilizations have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources indicates that "his views have created some impact outside the scope of that Association". If you don't think that calling these views "research" is appropriate, please feel free to change it to what is appropriate in your view. And I have added more content and sources to prove his notability. Please let me know if I need to do more. Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I still have some doubts as to how much of these theories have actually been spearheaded by Du himself, although I admit that I have only perused the English sources, where he is not the only name given in association with these theories. Giving the benefit of the doubt regarding this issue, there still remain some serious questions about the article structure. If we agree that the theories on Western civilization and language are the only solid justification for this article (given of course the background of Du having held high-ranking positions), then I think the article needs to be changed to reflect this more than is the case at present. At the moment, it looks almost like a curriculum vitae with the controversy as just a coda. I am not very familiar with the nooks and crannies of WP:BLP but I think that it would at least be highly desirable, if not essential, to include this controversy in the lead. Also, the pointer in the lead to New Confucianism leaves me (readily admitting that I am a non-expert) a bit helpless in determining if and how this relates to the controversial theories.


 * I am glad you agree that the theories possibly do not fit the description as "research"; in fact, from the English sources given, I also have difficulty seeing how they see a "controversy" at all, given their at least slightly jocular (in my view) tone in some instances.


 * A secondary issue: the Global Times, by the way, is discouraged on Wikipedia, see.


 * The above comments are in no way to slighten the efforts that you made. I repeat that I am not advocating erasing the material, but to place it somewhere where it may fit better and put less emphasis on the person. In any case, I feel that I am not really in a position to make a determination in this matter, which is one reason why I am thinking of opening an RfC. Do you have any thoughts on this?--CRau080 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the Chinese sources, Professor Du has played a significant role in arguing for these theories. And I don't think that "the theories on Western civilization and language are the only solid justification for this article". Professor Du is notable as a legal scholar and an advocate of New Confucianism in the first place, known for his idea that Confucianism can be used as the ideological basis for constitutionalism and human rights. He was selected as one of "100 jurists who influenced the process of promoting rule of law in China" (影响中国法治建设进程的百位法学家) by China Today in 2017. I have added more content and sources to (try to) prove his notability outside the study of Western civilization. Although the sources are in Chinese, Google Translate may help understand them.
 * Please allow me to clarify that I do regard Professor Du's theories on civilizations as "research", but because I am very reluctant to have an edit war, I will not revert the edit if you change "research" to what is appropriate in your view. And I have changed "caused controversy" to "attracted public attention".
 * The Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao) has not be used as a source in this article (23 sources in the current version) although one source, footnote 18 (foreignpolicy.com), cites this newspaper.
 * Please feel free to open a RfC. Thank you for your discussion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * First, sorry for having overlooked that the Global Times reference is only cited within another, fully acceptable source, which voids my related remark. On your comment on the matter whether the appellation as research of that material on Western civilization may be disputable, I wish to say that my wording did not imply that you are holding a particular view on that matter itself – that would certainly be improper of me – but that I gathered that you accept that the matter is not crystal clear. I did not make any changes not only because of my general concerns regarding this article being suitable for Wikipedia, but because I thought it would be more constructive to talk here first, as I am not a fan of edit wars either. The article has benefited from the work that you have done, as much as a layperson such as myself can say that. It should however IMHO be fully clear even to a layperson what the nature of Du's notability is. Whether that is the case now, I am still unsure, but I will examine this. And I will think about whether opening an RfC would be appropriate, also given that BLPs are complex matters with which I so far have only limited experience. I am glad you are agreeable with this way forward.--CRau080 (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your reply and clarification. Best regards.--Neo-Jay (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)