Talk:List of Chinese Nobel laureates

Seems this page was drafted a little hasty, more clarification is required to what exactly constitutes an ethic chinese, especially since the morphological and genetic argument both have long been dead.

I recommend removal until further clarification is provided.

Nerusai (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

@Buhuzu "(references added, dont mess up ths article pls)" This only addressed the referencing concern, but did nothing to clarify what exactly is required to be considered an ethnic chinese. The article on 'ethnic Chinese' already states that the definition is ambiguous at best. This page still has no reason to exist. You might as well make a list of red-haired Nobel Laureates.

Nerusai (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

btw, such if you want to make an article about the ethnic Dutch Nobel Laureates, we totally support such a brilliant idea; that would really enrich the Wikipedia. Red-haired? impossible, many netizens have such common sense, 'coz the Nobelprize.org (official website) did not record their hair colours, past Laureates' profile photos are all in black and white) (Qergrbvb vbhjyu (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)) See also the article of the Nobel laureates of India, which is also a complicated case, and a mix of multi-views. The Japanese one would be much simpler: List of Japanese Nobel laureates, created by that guy (Buhuzu).(Qergrbvb vbhjyu (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)) You also can find out a template: Template:Hungarian Nobel Laureates which is also a difficult case, includes like Germans, foreign-borns, Jewish, and the modern history of Hungary is also extremely complicated.

I'm not sure where you obtained the idea where I'd want to make yet another of these seemingly irrelevant lists (and why Dutch?). Anyway, please sign your posts using four dashes, so we can keep track of the discussion. The problem with this page is that it's built on a seemingly arbitrary definition (as opposed to nationality). I'm still not sure what additional benefits this page offers over the standard laureate list. My request is that this vague definition of 'ethnic Chinese' is clarified, so that we can see what this list has to offer. Nerusai (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this article is understandable, it can stay.(TechnoOptics (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

The ethnic background is based on their family background and/or their autobiographies/biographies from the official web pages of Nobelprize.org. Because the Chinese history and nationality laws are extremely complicated (both in history and at present), so the author (who created this article) also added (additional section about) those Laureates who were born in China [or say, presently in the Chinese territories, such as Brattain was born in Qing Dynasty China, and several were born in the Republic period, Dalai Lama was born in Qinghai/Tibet, which was in-cooperating with the Republic during that time] to offer a more comprehensive view. The deletion-of-an-article decision in Wikipedia is through voting, not by individual claim of "no reason to exist". Especially, those opinions from certain regions (i.e. Asia / U.S.A.) are also important because they can understand the history and/or background much better (Qergrbvb vbhjyu (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

I have one question about that Hungarian one. Many winners were Germans and Austrians they were even not born in Hungary, how could the creator so easily categorize them together??? (Alex Kuper (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

So exactly what order of family do you need to have (had) living in the region currently named 'China' to qualify to be an ethnic Chinese, and thus inclusion in this list. There being an ethnic Hungarian nobel laureate list just means there's another one around that really needs to be scrutinized. So far this ethnic Chinese label seems to be on looser grounds than a haircolor one would be. Either way, please address the concerns mentioned by either providing a proper definition of the label, or stating that this demand to do so is nonsensical (which is your perogative). So we can move the discussion forward, as I'm sure a useful wikipedia page is our common goal. And so far it just seems to be a handful of people's useless pet-list. (And yes, I am aware of the deletion criteria and procedure, just making my intentions clear in this discussion so the article may perhaps be amended before we start wasting other people's time.) Nerusai (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's simple, I have checked those articles, if this one must be deleted, those Indian or Hungarian ones should not exist. I kindly advise Nerusai to discuss this issue with those creators of these articles - User:Chen Guangming, User:Cronium, User:Baxter9, and User:Buhuzu, instead of being trapped here. I agree that Indian article is really a mixture, several Nobel prize winners were born in British India and their birthplaces now are even not in India - Bengal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and several were ethnic British and held British nationality but not native Indian people. Personally I feel that article is even more mixed and confusing than this one, however, in its discussion it's rated as HIGH ^_^. I'd prefer keeping this article. (Alex Kuper (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Speak again, personally I feel this article is clean. The first list shows winners are ethnic Chinese, so obvious because their parents were all Chinese people and some winners immigrated to the United states. Probably there'r some doubts about Yuan T. Lee, but when he was in UC berkeley as i knew his lab was nicknamed The Chinese Lab. The additional list shows other winners born in China just to offer extra info let ppl know. Personally I think it's clear enough. It's also possible just change the title to Nobel winners of China, similar to the Nobel laureates of India. (Alex Kuper (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

What is required is that the construct 'ethnic Chinese' is defined, so that the encyclopedic nature of this page can be verified. The encyclopedia is not a directory list. Furthermore this article seems to be overcategorizing. It has nothing to add over the Nobel Laureate list[1]. I will nominate this page for deletion now. Please address the contents of these arguments, rather than simply removing the nomination. This page as it stands does not seem to be encyclopedic. --Anon1597 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree to keep the article, the arguments along with the Indian, Hungarian and Japanese entities are good, this case is even simpler than those ones. I now tell one or possible two users, please do not overuse your tagging power and please respect the opinions from the majority, otherwise I'll call the senior administrator to ban your accounts. (Nya5ybsh (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Please be clear about what you think is good, and why this article is encyclopedic. So far none of the concerns mentioned in my previous comment have been addressed. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, it's not about majority opinion. It's about whether this article is in violation of the policies governing the Wikipedia, and whether the information contained within is neutral and verifiable. --Anon1597 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

One or two persons, please also respect the comments and opinions from those editors who discussed to keep the article. I have noticed that the account Anon1597 is a newly created account, I guess it's a puppet, I will keep an eye on it and further discuss this problem with my administrator. If he agrees, the account could be blocked. (Nya5ybsh (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Many people have already stated this article is OK, and already much less confusing than several similar articles. Many extra references were also added, which makes it much clearer than the other articles. According to the tone, privately I guess Nerusai and Anon1597 are the same guy, if it's true that the puppet violation happens, I would say sorry to these two accounts. (Nya5ybsh (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

It is indeed the same person editing, my apologies if any confusion arised. --Anon1597 (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The argument that this article is less confusing than other existing articles is not a good argument to keep it. That is, unless they already survived a nomination for deletion. I restated the concerns I have for this article below at the RfC. Please address the concerns raised. I will respect the outcome of the RfC. --Anon1597 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests for Comment: Is this page encyclopedic?

This article might be in violation of at least two Wikipedia policies. It appears to be an overcategorized directory list[2][3] with no additional content over the already existing list[4]. Further, the definition it uses to warrant itself (Ethnic Chinese) is ambiguous. It should be noted that there was at least one active editor[5] on this article. This editor recently mended the lack of references, but did nothing to address the above concerns. This editor also retired, and is unlikely to significantly contribute in the near future.

Is this article encyclopedic? --Anon1597 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

First check its foregoing example e.g. Nobel laureates of India, if the Indian one is relevant, this one about Chinese can be remained here. Because it's related to either China or Chinese people, it approximately has the same-level significance to the Indian's. (OsacA-Kanzai (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Do you mean that the Indian article already has survived a deletion discussion? I must shamefully admit that I have not checked this prior to opening this discussion. --Anon1597 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the article can stay. First, the main list shows ethnic Chinese winners which is appropriate, and whose references are also correctly cited. The short list shows additional information about other China-born winners (as said) just to offer a more all-around view, which is also appropriate. This article in fact is much simper but comprehensible than the Indian list. As in the legal system, we should always take a glance at the former cases, bcoz the latter can not be mistaken first. (As mentioned) Indian and Hungarian articles are very intricate, much more than this article, so the inspector should first go to discuss those articles or with those creators of these articles, but not just rudely tag or multi-tag this one by only himself.(Alex Kuper (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

China-born winners are already covered by the Chinese nationality. This also doesn't cover the ambiguity behind the construct (ethnic Chinese) used as justification for the page's existence, does it? On the topic of the other laureate lists: I just ran into this page first, and saught it cleaned up. After this discussion has been resolved, there may perhaps be cause to move onward to the other pages. I did not see a point in opening a discussion on all of these pages at once. Perhaps I should have been more patient with the tags. --Anon1597 (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a long-time fan of wiki on Chinese stuffs though i didn't contribute this item. After reading all words above I think we can bind all wiki articles on Nobel winners from a certain country or ethnic group together to discuss their relevance, importance and necessity. I indeed see the Indian, Chinese items and the Hungarian template have high similarity, and it's kinda eye-opening that people can discuss all these stuffs. And Yes we'd better first talk on the discussion board then make the next move. Sincerely. (Alex Needham (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC))