Jump to content

Talk:Charles K. Kao

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2607:fea8:700:21a0:3863:6d72:d616:444b (talk) at 22:53, 4 November 2021 (→Footnote 19 Incorrect.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kao's birthplace

NO ACTION
Users presented the status of the POB at that time. While some user claimed it was in foreign concession in Shanghai (without providing citation) at that time, thus should not use China but France (French Oversea Territories). While other user stated the practice in wikipedia as well as in secondary source of just using "Shanghai, China" even for that period of history. Further more, user stated that to use Republic of China to distinguish with the People's Republic of China. Nevertheless the later version of the article settled on "Republic of China" even this discussion ended as no consensus Matthew_hk tc 21:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kao's birth place should be strictly according to the official website of the Nobel Foundation, and should be indicated as only Shanghai, China (current place/city and country).

Otherwise the case would be very difficult to verify and discuss. And it's also the same for the other numerous Nobel Laureates.

For example, some Indian Laureates were born in British India (now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh). And, especially for some European Laureates, it's very complicated, such as some Laureates were born in Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, Russian Empire (such as once including today's Poland), and so on, but now they are different countries.

I have another good example, before the WWII, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc were territories of the British Empire. (6unj (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

For example: Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore was born and lived in British India, the official webpage of Nobel Foundation indicates him as "India" (today's India) in residence, instead of "British India". Please see: The Nobel Prize in Literature 1913 Rabindranath Tagore (Hriuiov vv (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I am not sure if avoid "getting very complicated" really the reason to set the birthplace to a "present day country" instead of the country at the time. The Nobel Foundation deals with things that are far more complicated than, for example, citing the correct countries names to relation to the year in history. International Common Editor (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User User:International Common Editor, would you please change Nobel Laureates' birthplaces of those Canadians, New Zealanders, Indians, Australians, South Africans to the British Empire, and the birthplaces of Germans to the Reich, the birthplaces of Polishes to the Russian Empire, etc. ...??? Then it's ok to change this one.(ERsdeed (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Because Australia became an country after Federation of Australia in 1901, and New Zealand gained independence, etc. So it is appropriate to refer to its country name. (that's what I am trying to do here also) But if the person was born before the independence, the place of birth should be referred to the colony, not the country that was formed in the future. Although I am also fine how the article of Napoleon I is handled, in which his place of death is Longwood, Saint Helena, British Empire. International Common Editor (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert of history, but by witnessing you listed out all the changes in country names and its borders in relation to the years, I think the aligning the birthplace to the country at the time isn't going to be too difficult, right? International Common Editor (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason is, from a Western view (which is also the conventional view or international view), no matter Qing Dynasty, Republic era, or People's Republic era, we all say that country/place as China. I don't think this is a problem. No matter in unofficial documents or official treaties, it's all like that. The same is also applied to Japan, no matter the Great Empire of Japan, or the American-occupied Japan (for 8+ years), or present Japan, we just mention as Japan. (The nngh (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
If your principle of "avoiding getting complicated" is really valid and enforced, Julius Caesar's birthplace should be renamed to Italy. By doing so, will it look more simple? No, it will just cause confusion if we start to set all persons' birthplace to "present day country" and omit the country at the time. Of course, Julius Caesar is not a Nobel laureate, but at the same time I don't see how Kao's birthplace should be handled differently. Nobel Foundation may did that for political reason (avoid protest from current country), but we are not bound by this on wikipedia, right? International Common Editor (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "China" doesn't make it wrong. "Kao was born in Shanghai, China" is absolutely correct if you think carefully and calmly. User:International Common Editor you exaggerated too much yourself. (Alice Muller (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Kao actually was born in the International Settlement in Shanghai, that was even NOT a territory of the Republic of China at that time! The whole district which Kao was born was managed by then-French Government, that's why Kao also learned French. (Alice Muller (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, those districts in Shanghai were transferred to the Republic of China only after the WWII. During the WWII, they were partially occupied by Japanese army. (The nngh (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Edmond H. Fischer in his AUTOBIOGRAPHY says: I was born in Shanghai, China on April 6, 1920. So for the same situation to Kao's case, it's correct. From the Western view (which is also the conventional view or international view), no matter Qing Dynasty, Republic era, or People's Republic era, we ALL say that country/place as "China". This example is clear enough. (The nngh (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Let me sum up the few arguments listed for avoid mention the country name (Republic of China) at the time:

  • Too complicated to find out the country name at the time - turn out to be not the case as no one cite it as reason anymore.
  • Kao was born in Shanghai International Settlement so it is not in Republic of China - this turned out to be false, if you've read that article, you should knew the sovereignty of the Settlement did not transfer to other countries and has always remained a Chinese sovereign territory, that is, from 1862-1911 of Empire of Great Qing of China, and from 1911-1949 of Republic of China. The international settler rented and managed the lands, but didn't own it.
Kao was born in the Concession française de Shanghai, in the Avenue Joffre, of course it did NOT belong to the Republic of China according to the Treaty between Western Powers and China. China at that time did NOT have any power in such concessions.
Kao was born in the International/British Concession, where the Chinese gov did not have administrative power. Additionally, the Nobel foundation only recognizes the laureate's birthplace (in fact all info) at the time when the award was being given. (Heung JJ 1111 (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Additionally, your change did not fit the original reference from the Nobel foundation which cites Kao was born in Shanghai, China. As someone said above, all standard English references say in this way. (Heung JJ 1111 (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
No need to change from "China" to the other forms. Please stand the same as all the English literature - "Shanghai, China" (Heung JJ 1111 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I urge you to read the article again. Concession française de Shanghai in Chinese is 上海法租界, it means a place that is rented to the French, not sold. ROC retained its ownership.
  • The nngh's arguement: Western view = international view - where did you get this idea from? I don't think it is fair to asssume Western view doesn't make distinction between China, Republic of China, and People's Republic of China in official documents. I know there are Western people don't care about the difference between Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo, and there are Asian don't care about the difference between Australia and New Zealand, but doesn't mean we have to make the same mistake. . In official documents, the country on China from 1911-1949 had always used the name Republic of China, a notable example is Republic of China's the signiture on Japanese Instrument of Surrender.
  • China is the correct name for the place, so we should not use mention Republic of China -They are both correct actually, with the name "China" is a more loosely defined name while "Republic of China" is more precise.
Kao was born in the French Concession, which was not ruled by the Republic of China until 1943. So we should change Kao's birth place into French Oversea Territories. (ERsdeed (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I have explained this above regarding why it is in Republic of China. Please see the paragraph above beginning with Kao was born in Shanghai International Settlement so it is not in Republic of China International Common Editor (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called ROC is a failed state `de jure`, the United Nations does NOT recognize ROC `de jure`, because the ROC President Chiang Kai-shek (the legal head of the state at that time) announced to withdraw from the UN in 1970s.
If in this case indicated as ROC, then several German and Italian Nobel recipients whose birthplaces would be indicated as Nazi Germany and Nazi Italy, which are too wild and not suitable. So it's appropriate to just indicate the present country/stae and present birthplace.
Shanghai is NOT ROC territory at present.
Potsdam is not a German Empire territory at present too, why don't you change Frederick III, German Emperor's death place German Empire to its modern name German? We use the name that is aligned with the history at the time, not present, to make the description accurate.
In our case, since we are dealing with an event (Kao's birth) happened in 1933, I don't see whatever happened in 1970s is reverent. I think we should respect history of that particular time. If that's country was called Republic of China, why can't we tell the truth?
I am not an expert in German history, but I am aware that it is known by different names in history: German Empire (1871–1918), Weimar Republic (1919–33), Nazi Germany (1933–45), from 1945-1990 East Germany and West Germany. By utilising the name that is aligned to the time, it let reader to better understand the circumstance at the time. Frederick III, German Emperor's article is a good example of such approach, where it say his deathplace is German Empire. It helps reader to quickly see that when he died, Germany was still an empire, instead of a republic. Using the generic name "Germany", while still correct, lacks the aforementioned fidelity. International Common Editor (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nngh's agruement: Edmond H. Fischer in his AUTOBIOGRAPHY says: "I was born in Shanghai, China,1920" & China is clear enough Just because someone wrote this sentence in an autobiography, doesn't mean Republic of China disappeared in history from 1911-1949, it is still the correct name of the country at the time. As for the "China is clear enough" argument, as I said, Republic of China is a more precise name, more faithful to the history in respect to the time. International Common Editor (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, it's totally imprecise or unfaithful to the history. Kao was born in the French Concession, which was not ruled by the Republic of China until 1943. So we should change Kao's birth place into French Oversea Territories. Moreover, Koa should be awarded the Légion d'honneur by the Government of France in future. (ERsdeed (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Pls see my response to Kao was born in Shanghai International Settlement so it is not in Republic of China for explaination. International Common Editor (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edmond H. Fischer in his AUTOBIOGRAPHY says: "I was born in Shanghai, China,1920" of course is logic and appropriate enough. Not only Prof. Fischer but also many people during that time born in China say so. Saying "China" is fairly enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhtrhrc (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was referring to Republic of China, because that's the name of the country in 1920. There are more reliable sources that indicate the country's name than a foreigner's autobiography, a notable example is Republic of China's the signiture on Japanese Instrument of Surrender. International Common Editor (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no response for weeks, I am going to correct the country name to the time aligned to the event. If anyone can think of any reason why we must not mention the name of the country at the time that hasn't mentioned above, please feel to contribute. International Common Editor (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All serious English references all indicate Kao was born in Shanghai, China which is correct. Here is English Wikipedia, and we respect serious English references. (Listsstory67nbn (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You are being disruptive, we all know it all those reference (when referring to period between 1911-1949), China was used as the shortform of Republic of China, and the words "China" & "Republic of China" were interchangeable in many situation, much like "America" and "United States of America". (and I removed your personal attrack comment) International Common Editor (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is The English Wikipedia, we primarily trust and cite reliable English references. If most English references say Kao was born in Shanghai, China, then The English Wikipedia should edit like this, there is absolutely NO necessity to modify. Understand? (ERsdeed (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Are you using multiple accounts ( ERsdeed, Listsstory67nbn, The_nngh), to make it sounds like many people agreeing with you? I feel funny that all 3 of them are new account, all their first edits are on this talk page around the same time, and hold the exactl same view. International Common Editor (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example articles using country names that correspond correctly to the time of the birth/death:

Example articles Birth Place on article Death Place Notes
Gandhi British India Union of India 5 times Nobel nominates, while both birth/death places could be replaced w/ India, the current name give a clearer indication.
Thích Quảng Đức French Indochina Republic of Vietnam rationale as above
Syngman Rhee Joseon Korea United States 1st President of South Korea, his birth pre-date the founding of both modern Koreas (North & South) .
Václav Havel Czechoslovakia(now Czech Republic) - 10th President of Czechoslovakia, 1st President of the Czech Republic
Georg Cantor Saint Petersburg, Russian Empire (now Russia) Province of Saxony, German Empire (now Germany) mathematician

So in this article, while the ambiguous "China" is technically not wrong, using the correct name of the time (Republic of China) could give readers a better sense of history. It also present an important fact, Dr Kao was not born in People's Republic of China which the country that "China" is commonly referring to. International Common Editor (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editprotected

{{editprotected}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Needham (talk • contribs) 2010-08-15T01:33:54 (UTC)

article is not protected, so feel free to make any changes yourself. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kao's Alma mater

User stated that (by common sense and personal knowledge presumably), despite Kao studied in University College London and Woolwich Polytechnic , the degrees are granted by University of London Matthew_hk tc 21:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kao received BSc and PhD both from University London (more precisely, @ the University of London External System). However, nowadays, few would say "my alma mater is University London External System". Normally biographies trace back to alumni's constituent colleges.

Such as in the case of this article, Kao's PhD education was from the University College London, though he was an external student (the University of London External System) when working during that time and his PhD diploma was granted by generally the University of London.

So, follow the same illustration, Kao's undergraduate alma mater is more appropriate to write as the Woolwich Polytechnic or the current University of Greenwich, though Kao's BSc diploma was also granted by generally the University of London.

In fact in these cases, "alma mater University of London" or "alma mater University of London External System" has much less sense than actual colleges.

Please also see Kao's own biography also in Simplified Chinese version (assisted by my colleague):

  • [1]
    • "在和域治理工学院的整整四年间，除了上课、做实验，就是与同学交往，参与体育运动，特别是乒乓球和网球。此外，我也经常为中国同学组织大型的中式聚餐，和为理工学院和伦大学生会举办社交舞会。"
  • [2]
    • "对于错失的机会，我绝少会用“遗憾”来形容。在和域治理工学院完成首年预科课程后，我本来可以报读我心目中理想的大学。因为喜爱科学，我坚持在高级程度考试中报考四个理科科目，就是数学、应用数学、物理和化学，以这几个科目的成绩，进入伦大任何一家比较著名的学院应不成问题。但我不知道要进入这几家学院要另行申请，我只是随遇而安，继续留在和域治。我没有后悔错失进入“名校”的机会，在理工学院，我和教师的关系更为密切，与他们有更多直接交流，获益良多。"
  • [3]
    • "不久，我的上司提议我一边在实验所工作，一边读个博士学位。伦敦大学大学学院的巴洛教授（Prof Barlow）是微波研究的先锋，后来亲自督导这方面的研究。我定的课题是“类光学波导”（Quasi-Optical W*eguides），目的是深入了解在封闭及开放式波导系统中自由空间传播及波导传播的现象。在封闭式波导系统中，讯息波在一个密封的金属罩中传导，而在开放式波导系统中，讯息波由电介质传导，因此电磁场不受金属管道限制。有关的研究，以类光学方式通过一个右弯的特大长方形波导管模型进行，让我有充裕的空间探索微波和光波在通讯中的功用。"

We hope those HongKongers are clear about this point. (Alice Muller (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • since the Imperial left London University system became independent, and many constituent colleges have started awarding their own degrees. Nowadays if say <my PhD is from University of London> sounds like <my PhD is from University of California> - but from which school exactly??? (as we all know there are University of California,: Berkeley, Riverside, LA, SD, SF, ... etc.) (Alex Kuper (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    • Thank you Alice for clearing this up. Although I can't read simplified Chinese characters.
      • Alex Kuper, I'm sure you know that the University of London consists of a group of federated colleges (i.e. LSE, UCL, King's College, Queen Mary etc) and they can all award the University of London degree although students also have a choice now (after 2007/08) to receive a degree from their constituent college. Students who studied internally would normally list the college they studied at (i.e. BSc LSE) for the sake of clarity and possibly prestige? But what I referred to earlier on was Woolwich Polytehnic, which at that time didn't even grant their own award so I don't see why University of London should be left out as Kao's alma mater. But now things are cleared up. 116.48.94.210 (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flag templates

The flag templates (such as  United Kingdom and  United States) have been deployed in many Wikipedia articles, particularly in the infoboxes. Those flag templates are good for indicating the nationality and the place of birth of the person to which the article pertains. I think these templates should stay in the infobox in this article. I just don't understand why some Wikipedians delete the contributions of others immediately and repeatedly without even discussing about that on the talk page. I see this massive, repetitive deletion as a form of vandalism. Please stop that. - Alan (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the not at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Flags. Matthew_hk tc 14:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Charles kao was once Vice President. He was named executive scientist. He established the electronics department and won a Draper prize for engineering. Kao published a paper on Fibre optics which won him a prize. He joined an ITT lab in London to help with his career.

Hong Kong

Kao has the citizenship of Hong Kong SAR. (Alex Needham (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No, no dual nationality in China and those who have foreign nationality means they lost the nationality and cannot naturalized as Chinese again. Matthew_hk tc 14:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HKSAR recognizes dual nationality because of one country and two systems. 203.218.20.125 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mainland constitution cannot be applied the same in HK. Personally I think HKSAR recognizes dual or multiple nationality. Laws of 1 country 2 systems have the explanation, I think ... (Notethere2009 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
permanent residence in HK is different with nationality. Acquire foreign nationality = renounce Chinese nationality, and "restore" Chinese nationality need renounce foreign nationality. No source Kao did and only stupid will renounce unless he have strong interest in Chinese nationality for a place in central government. [4] 123.202.57.244 (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also right, quite depending on the understanding of a "citizenship" itself (Notethere2009 (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It's really much better that Kao is able to clearify this. Chinese (incl. HK, Macao) laws and regulations are too subtle and complicated. Who the hell really know what inside is. We are all laypeople watching outside. (Notethere2009 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I noticed that at the first moment of announcement, it was indicated as China & UK, as Kao's nationality, on the official website of Nobelprize.org. (Notethere2009 (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Hong Kong and Macao citizens are allowed to hold duel- or multi-nationality. (Speakdriveyou (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
(Alex Needham (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)) many (ranked very high) political candidates in Hong Kong before their governmental installation, they have to drop their foreign nationality (such as Canadian citizenship, btw, many Hong Kongers have CA citizenship), and even declare: I already renounced foreign citizenship, blabla, just like this. So at least highly-ranked governmental officials they own sole nationality.[reply]
I also saw at very beginning the Nobel Prize in Physics homepage showed that Kao's nationality was "China and UK". But later the laureates' nationality was all vanished. It's also possible that Kao has three nationalities. Anyway, sometimes the nationality problem is kinda complicated, like the chemist Osamu Shimomura in 2008. There isn't anyone whom can be really blamed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Needham (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it was removed from the source soon after it was published, it probably shouldn't be included in the article unless other reliable sources can be found (and if amy are found, maybe it should also be discussed on the talk page first). If the relevant Wikipedia articles are correct (which is possible, although there are no sources in any of them) dual nationality is not recognised in China but that doesn't mean it isn't recognised in the rest of the world. snigbrook (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End the story please, Mr. Nobel already told us more than 100yr ago, nationality is not important, is not considered! (Allowrocks2003040957 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

According ROC law, he may have ROC nationality but no one use their passport. 123.202.57.244 (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About British nationality, there is little restriction to in the past for the citizen of the colonies. It is movement inside the Empire and not immigration to another nation. But after the new act, seems he need to pass some criteria to acquire British citizens (BC). He may not holds British nationality but in the past he have. 123.202.57.244 (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or he acquired through marriage. 123.202.57.244 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that possible Kao also has Taiwan citizenship? My reason is he's also a member but not a FOREIGN MEMBER of Academia Sinica. If so, he would have four citizenships: USA, UK, HK, TW. (O0'''lien (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The Constitution Law of ROC recently changed to only excise in Taiwan and ROC controlled islands. Kao may have ROC nationality before 1948, or until Taiwan kicked off from UN in 1970s. There is no such Hong Kong nationality, as part of PRC, and he is the foreign member of Chinese Academy of Sciences. Matthew_hk tc 12:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Alex is right, when you mention 'citizenship' like 'Kao has Hong Kong citizenship', it's also quite approperiate; but when you mention 'nationality' then it's wrong. A citizenship=/=nationality, just like there's 'honorary citizen/citizenship', there's nearly no honorary 'nationality'. (LimoMoMoLg (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Kao Hong Kong citizenship cannot be verified, it is because he may lost his permanent residence if he 1. he has foreign nationality and 2. not reside in hong kong for 3 years continuously. non-permanent residence cannot be elected or elect people. and lstly there is no such Hong Kong citizenship but permanent residence rights Matthew_hk tc 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Professor Dr. Charles K. Kao has Hong Kong SAR Citizenship. There are non-national citizenship, national citizenship, non-citizen nationals, and citizen nationals. Kao has nationalities of British and American, and has citizenships of Hong Kong SAR, British, and American.
Kao's birth place should be strictly according to the official website of the Nobel Foundation, and should be indicated as only Shanghai, China (current place/city and country). Otherwise the case would be very difficult to verify and discuss, and it's also the same for the other many Nobel Laureates. Such as some Indian Laureates were born in British India (now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh). Especially for some European Laureates, it's very complicated, such as some Laureates were born in Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, Russian Empire, and so on, but now they are different countries. (Hriuiov vv (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Alumni of the University of Greenwich

Why is he in that category? --Duncan (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The university claim he is the alumni. Woolwich Polytechnic (now University of Greenwich) in 1957,University of Greenwich Alumni A-L, accessed 23 July 2009
Nobel Prize use University of London, as Imperial College London is a former member. Matthew_hk tc 11:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew_hk: Please stop vandalising. Get your facts right! Charles Kao is an alumni of Woolwich Polytechnic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.14.128 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can found tons of source, Nobel prize web site, CUHK website, Reuters. Matthew_hk tc 13:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources point to the University of London, which itself is a questionable fact (depends on whether at that point of time Woolwich Polytechnic was a part of the federation). So PLEASE stop vandalising the page and put in FACTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.14.128 (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would Woolwich Polytechnic able to grant degree and/or the academic program is jointly-held by the two schools or he just take some credits? Unless have a reliable source to explain, please leave him in Imperial College London as it is the most common, most source to support. Matthew_hk tc 13:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Polytechnic_(United_Kingdom) for a description of Polytechnics. And I am afraid you are the one providing facts without support (in my last edition I provided two references). Again, I request that you stop vandalising the page and get your facts right. You are a shame to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.14.128 (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can determine, he did his first degree at Woolwich Polytechnic and his PhD at Imperial College. Only the latter is mentioned by the Nobel website. I would ignore the University of London issue entirely, it's an umbrella organisation for the many higher education institutions in London and it doesn't do very much.Edsegal (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woolwich Polytechnic was not allowed to issue it's own degrees so all students would have taken external degrees - most likely an external University of London Degree [5]. Imperial College was part of the University of London up until July 2007 [6]. Up until this point all of it's degrees would also have been issued by the University of London. Thus, Charles' PhD would have been a University of London PhD, although he would have also been given a DIC Diploma of Imperial College. Brendan28 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to MeantimeAlumni (a magazine for the alumni of the University of Greenwich) he attended Woolwich Polytechnic as an internal student of the University of London, although Woolwich doesn't appear to have been part of the University (it wasn't in 1965[7] but was closely associated with it). The definition of "alumni" can be used in different ways, so both versions appear to be correct. snigbrook (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I work in the Inmperial College Alumni Department and Charles Kao did not complete his PhD here, but at UCL. He did hold a visiting professorship here, which is probably where the confusion is arising from. For a source I recommend contacting the UCL alumni depatment, who will be able to verify whether he is an alumni of that college. Hope this is helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.220.139 (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Foundation said PHD at Imperial College. Matthew_hk tc 12:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it's a quite simple fact but complicated history. Kao did work at Imperial College (at that time a college of the University of London) but the degree was issued by the University of London. Imperial College got independent (became an independent entity/university) on 8 July 2007, from then on, the Imperial College issues its own degrees (but at Kao's time, the degree issuing system is generally "[the degree name] of London"). The Nobel Prize Foundation is correct. (TechnoOptics (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The University of London is a very loose "conglomerate", actually it's colleges implement enducation/teaching/research. In the old time, diplomas were normally issued bearing or under the name of the University of London, later (for a short period of time), graduates could choose "college diploma" (issued by his/her collge) or "university dilpoma" (issued by the Univeristy of London, generally), nevertheless now colleges such as University College London issues its own degrees. The Imperial College London got independent from the University of London System on July 8 2007, and now issues its own diplomas. The University of London System is little bit similar to the University of California System, personally think (TechnoOptics (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Read the ip user from Imperial College said he may complete his PHD at University College London (UCL), another university institution of University of London. Matthew_hk tc 13:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that anonymous paragraph a solid evidence? We should first cite the source from the Nobel Committee, personally think. And during the old time, the Imperial College held the major of engineering faculty in the University of London System, the electrical engineering was quite Imperial College's stuff, personally think, though I did not do electrical engineering (TechnoOptics (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The Guardian says: "Kao, who gained a PhD from Imperial College and became vice-chancellor of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said: "I am absolutely speechless and never expected such an honour." (TechnoOptics (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The Sun reports: Kao, who holds both British and American citizenship, was born in Shanghai in 1933, went to school in Hongkong and gained his PhD in electrical engineering from Imperial College, London. (TechnoOptics (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Anyway, at that time, the degree was issued by the University of London in general. (TechnoOptics (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Simply send e-mail to Imperial College, UCL and University of London, say we are wikipedia/wikinews editor. Matthew_hk tc 19:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobel Prize committe officially said he did his PhD at Imperial.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.37.164 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Short of a formal statement by either Kao or Imperial, should this article really claim that the Nobel committee got his PhD institution wrong? (What's surprising is that, unlike Greenwich neither IC nor UCL have issued a press release saying "congratulations to our former student...") Djr32 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such confusion! The Nobel press release cited now states only that Kao got his degree from the University of London. However, the Google cache records the page as showing he got the degree from Imperial. So we can conclude that the Nobel people got it wrong and have now quietly fixed their error. In any case, there is now no basis for the Imperial link, and I have corrected it. Willbown (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the university and its colleges is complicated, the life of the laureate is complicated, ... (Erfrfdfsfv (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry for anonymous posting but I just questioned the Provost at UCL on his claim that Charles Kuen Kao completed "a PhD at UCL under the supervision of Prof Harold Barlow, though his exact status remains unclear: it appears that he may have been an external student" and he replied, "Wikipedia have it wrong, and Imperial do not claim him as an alumnus. Malcolm Grant". Huw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.255.6 (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes his own autobiography also said Kao lead the research team after his mentor left, but no college is mentioned. Matthew_hk tc 13:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, in his autobio it mentions that Kao enrolled and obtained his PhD from University College London, under Prof Barlow [8]. This can be proved by UCL official facts and figures [9] Scholarship section. it's amazing that anonymous editor from Belgium (accord. to ip) was absolutely correct! (Allowrocks2003040957 (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
People keep switching back to Woolwich Polytechnic which does not make sense. He may have attended that institution and be classified as an alumni, but his degree was conferred by the University of London. The infobox category states "Alma Mater" which by definition means "where one earned one's first degree or doctorate, or both". And since Woolwich at the time did not issue their own degrees which does not fit into that category. Professor Kao then got his PhD from UCL, a federated college and still part of the University of London. Source 1; Source 2; Source 3 116.48.92.222 (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seem i can't add archive box to this thread as i was involved. However, according to nobelprize.org archived version in 2009, https://web.archive.org/web/20091008215334/http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2009/press.html the org used Imperial College while the current version i accessed today, used University of London. As Reuters and other media used nobelprize.org as reference, it seem also incorrectly stated as Imperial College. For post 2009 source, there is high risk of circular referencing . So, today it still unsolved on this thread regarding University of London / Woolwich Polytechnic for undergrad as i did not see any reliable source to state University of London, only WP:original research and personal common sense / interpretation. For UCL and UoL, it seem more reliable source to pass wikipedia WP:verify criteria. Matthew_hk tc 22:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Title

From the source [10] Honorary Professors Professor KAO, Charles Kuen (高錕教授) CBE; BSc, PhD(Lond.); DSc(CUHK); DSc(Sus.); Doctorate(Soka); DEng(Glas.); DSc(Durh.); DUniv(Griff.); DTE(Padova); DSc(Hull.); DSc(Yale); FEng; FRS; FIEEE; FIEE; FHKIE; FNAE; Academican, Chinese Acad. of Sc.; Academician, Academia Scinica, Taipei

Matthew_hk tc 14:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Could we drop the protection as soon as the edit war is over? We're loosing out on a lot of improvement by having it protected now. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion. For example, the article states that he was born "in 4 November...". One is born on a date, not in a date. He was born "on 4 November..."Writtenright (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)writtenright[reply]
Some citations are still needed. Who can release the strict protection?? (Allowrocks2003040957 (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Also "Kao Kuen" is neither the Mandarin nor Cantonese pronunciation of his name. Its current location after the Hanji implies that it is one or the other. 74.101.177.155 (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be directly translated from Shanghainese dialect or dialects of Jiangsu/Zhejiang, 'coz Jinshan is just next to Zhejiang nowsadays. (Speakdriveyou (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I would be happy to unprotect the article, if we can figure out a way to avoid edit wars. I'd suggest that everyone follow the one-revert rule. Sound good? kmccoy (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, a full protection till the 8th October would be too long, I mean the duration. Is there any Administrator can pay a little bit attention on this? (Buhuzu (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes protection is probably not necessary, as there were only three users edit warring; one is currently blocked, one has been warned, and the other appears to have stopped so the protection should probably be removed, particularly as the article is related to a current event and is linked on the main page. snigbrook (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is even willing to respond to what I said? kmccoy (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to unprotect the article, in hopes that people will figure out a way to edit calmly and towards compromise. People who insist on simply reverting content they don't like, rather than attempting to find middle ground, may find themselves warned and then blocked for edit warring, regardless of whether they've violated the three-revert rule. Please try to improve rather than battle. :) Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kao's family

Some materials about Kao's family, from Jinshan, Shanghai.

Kao was born in a big family in Chang-Yan Village (Zhangyan Village, 張堰鎮) of Jinshan, Shanghai. His grandfather was Kao Choi-Wan (Gao Chuiwan, 高吹萬), a famous poet, revolutionary, literator, and was a key figure of Nan Society (South Society, 南社) in late Qing Dynasty.

His father's uncle was astronomer Ping-Tse Kao (高平子, Kao Crater is named after him).

The famous writer Kao Hsu (Gao Xu, 高旭) was also from his extended family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Once a week (talk • contribs) 2009-10-06T22:29:35 (UTC)

His father KAO Chun Hsiang (C.H.Kao; 高君湘 in Chinese characters) was a lawyer once for the international court in Shanghai. C.H.Kao was trained in the United States. He obtained his J.D. law degree from the University of Michigan School of Law in 1925, today the School still keeps corresponding archives such as: Alphabetical List with Year of Law School Graduates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0149784rr (talk • contribs) 13:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
C.H.Kao was the third son of his core family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0149784rr (talk • contribs) 13:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "source" of family is simply a copy and shortened version of Chinese wikipedia. Matthew_hk tc 19:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you followed the timing tightly, you could find out the detailed info of Kao's family first appeared here. The Chinese wiki translated from the English wiki, primarily, from this discussion section here :D (Big0Tree (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The "source" is not reliable, which 入学前，父亲聘请老师回家，教导高锟和高铻，诵读四书五经。10岁，高锟就读世界学校（即今日的国际学校），需要读中文之外，也要读英文和法文，学校聘请留法的学者回来教授，高锟开始接触中国之外的人事文化，他说：“影响很大！”。 added to Chinese wikipedia in March 2009 [11] without citation, and the news (入学前....“影响很大！), now with 50+ google hit in different site all look like a copy of Chinese wiki, cannot verify his father and brother name. It may be true his father is a lawyer but need a better citation. Matthew_hk tc 19:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found an article in Chinese, 高吹万 is 高平子 uncle, which means Charles's father is 高平子 cousin. Matthew_hk tc 20:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
高吹萬 = 高燮, his brother 高煌 is the father of 高平子, himself is a Jǔrén 舉人. Matthew_hk tc 20:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another 高吹萬 nephew is 姚光 Yao Guang, a historian, revolutionary, writer. Matthew_hk tc 20:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

I just got permission for two photos of Kao. I recommend the the first one, but here are cropped versions of both.

Check out the uncropped versions if anyone wants to do a better crop or do something about the red eyes. OTRS confirmation is pending. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the editprotected template. The article is now unprotected and you can make these edits yourself. kmccoy (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English Fluency

Can anyone who is fluent in the English language rewrite this article so that it is not so linguistically roughhewn? It is very difficult to read a scientific article in children's English... Stevenmitchell (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess pretty much Hong Kong style - an important style of English language. (Untilwhen2 (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I will attempt to do some editing work on it - but I may also end up relocating some information within the article to improve readability. But I have no intent to alter any information, so don't react too quickly if you can't find something. Riverpa (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most part of the article is in fluent English, especially the scientific background is quite good. (3249374587BigGo (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks! Riverpa (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research

He did research in US and HK, non of them notable?! Matthew_hk tc 20:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example searching US Patent. [12] Matthew_hk tc 20:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kao has at least 29 patents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LimoMoMoLg (talk • contribs) 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To restart the discussion, first the wiki article should be in more popular science tone to describe and summarize Kao's paper and patents. In another aspect, the TV program by RTHK, stated the patents of fibre optic were owned by the company he worked, which somehow should belongs to the article of the company, or fibre optic or this article? Matthew_hk tc 21:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charles K. Kao. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charles K. Kao. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Charles K. Kao. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Charles K. Kao. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Charles K. Kao. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need rewrite 2018

The article need to be clean up on reference. The flood of low quality pirate link of news article should be removed, according to the policy of wikipedia on not spreading copyvio link. As well as those pirate version, should be double checked with newspaper archive (such as 慧科, which i did not had membership) to verify that even the online version are pirated version, they are still true c&p. The link affected would be eastday.com (claiming copied from Youth Daily) and networkchinese.com (claiming copied from Ming Pao).

For other ref, this ref, according to the version in Wayback Machine, had nothing to do with the content, which probably a spam link, but did not discover until today. I am not sure there is other spam link existed in this article or not. Matthew_hk tc 21:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

@Clithering:, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context. Kao spent childhood in Shanghai, China (or in foreign concessions) as ethnic Chinese, secondary education in Hong Kong as ethnic Chinese and probably had right of abode, spent his uni education, marriage and his groundbreaking paper in UK as UK citizen, spent a while back to Hong Kong as professor, spent a long time in US as US citizen, back to Hong Kong as head of uni and then business career, spent his retirement in California , US and then Hong Kong. I don't see there is relevant to list Hong Kong only. Hongkong-British-American may be good (or British only? His most famous papers are done on UK), but it seem not mention nationality is the best. Matthew_hk tc 16:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is a nationality issue, especially in the case of Hong Kong as a special international city. It is more like a matter of cultural identity. In this regard, Sir Charles is quoted to have said (in Chinese) that "I was educated in high school in HK. I also taught at CUHK where I was the VC and I spend my retirement here. I have lived in HK for more than 30 years and is a Hongkonger to the bone". His statement, coupled with the other sources I have quoted, are powerful testimonies that he is fundamentally a Hongkonger. Even in terms of nationality, it should be noted that due to Hong Kong's special status, many Hong Kong people, like Sir Ka Shing Li and Sir Dickson Poon, possess foreign nationalities. Wikipedia never calls them Hong Kong-Canadian property developer or Hong Kong-British businessman. --Clithering (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
高錕. 傑出華人系列 (documentary and oral history) (in Cantonese, Chinese, and English). Radio Television Hong Kong. 2000. Retrieved 27 September 2018. The cite i added today. He already said he only belongs to where he live in the interview (without specific it refer to family/home, building, city or country). Right before that statement, he said he did not belong to any country but the world (or part of the centre of [his] world). The subject declared he is "world citizen" but not Chinese, Hongkonger, British, American (or Republic of California). There is an entry of Kao in a British science museum. Lastly, Apple Daily is famous for bad quality and tabloid journalism. Also in that source (the video) there is no such statement by him, and i doubt it was hoax by the newspaper for the transcript of the statement (Chinese: 在香港就讀高中、也曾在中大執教鞭、當校長，並在這裏退休，在香港生活逾30載，是個名副其實的香港人), which they often to do so. Instead, in the RTHK interview, he spoke that statement by himself in Mandarin instead of Cantonese which Hongkonger usually speak, which in other documentary, he knew how to speak Cantonese . Matthew_hk tc 17:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BBC did not use any nationality at all. Matthew_hk tc 17:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a survey of "trustfulness" of newspaper by an independent depart of CUHK, interviewing ~900 individuals circa 2016. The survey may had bias due to people that refuse to answer the survey may be not randomly disubstituted. And the survey is a quantitative research. But nevertheless Apple was ranked least among wide circulation paid paper newspaper, even worse than Sing Pao. And it only better than literally no one buying newspaper Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Po and Hong Kong Commercial Daily
For other practice in wikipedia, Albert Einstein who was Jewish and spent his early academic career in Germany and Switzerland (which partially German speaking country), and then spent his latter life in the US, as well as declared himself as world citizen according to the wiki article "world citizen", use German-born physicist. He publish general relativity in 1915 as Swiss-German (Prussian) citizen and special relativity in 1905 as Swiss. However, it would be odd to use Kao is a Chinese born scientist . Omit all nationality is the best option Matthew_hk tc 17:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have not responeded to a vast bulk of my arguments. In response to yours, the RTHK programme was produced (ironically in Hong Kong) in 2000. Its reference value is lower than later sources. I find your logic very odd as we do not determine the city/country where one belongs to by simply relying on what that person self-proclaims. For example, if you are a Hongkogner, I don't think you could lose that identity by publicly denying you are one. With reference to the latest government sources and his final own accounts (as you can see in the ensuing paragraphs), we could firmly establish the fact that he was a Hongkonger.
You have mentioned that there is an entry of Sir Charles "in a British science museum". However, if you have visited a British science museum, you would have found that the museum have entries of scientiests from all over the world. You seem to have narrowly and wrongly sterotyped Hong Kong people by defining them as Cantonese-speaking only, never possessing foreign nationalities, never thinking themselves to be "world citizens" and never possessing any overseas working/inhabiting experience. It is totally incorrect and entirely not the case.
You have questioned the credibility of Apple Daily, a major newspapaer in Hong Kong, by citing a survey of which you admit you do not know whether the survey itself is bias or not. However, if you are implying that Appli Daily is making "fake news", which is a term recently popularised by Donald Trump, I think you are making a very grave accusations and you need more evidences to prove the news article concerned is fake. The conclsion that you have jumped to without serious thought is very unfair to Apple Daily and to the people working there. I know some of them and my impression is that they are honest, outspoken and respectable journalists. In fact, if you do some more simple googling work, you would have found that the statement as quoted by Apple Daily is from a public letter issued by Sir Charles and Lady Kao in 2010. A copy of the letter, in both Chinese and English, is available in the authentic website of CUHK. In the public letter, they make it very clear that "Charles studied in Hong Kong for his high schooling, he has taught here, he was the Vice-Chancellor of CUHK and retired here too. In all he has lived in Hong Kong for over 30 years. So he is a Hong Kong belonger. That HK is so excited with a home grown engineer who was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics 2009, is very understandable."
You have mentioned that BBC does not mention he is a Hongkonger. However, omitting that fact does not mean he is not a Hongkonger. BBC is not a mouthpiece of the Kao's family and it is very remotedly related to, if not unrelated to, the Kao's family. The reference value of that particular BBC news article is very insignificant. As we do not see that it is a practice of Wikipedia to omit one's native identity in the led of biographical entries, it is fully justified to restore what you have unilaterally removed. --Clithering (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Foundation use British - American only. The statement of him in 2000, shortly before his Alzheimer's disease, was the strongest statement that he refused to answer his nationality. Simon Shen also quoted that statement as an example as "world citizen" ([13]) And looking back to page history, some version use Chinese-born Hong Kong, American and British and some use Chinese-born Shanghainese (probably vandalism), but to sum up, when a scientist had multiple nationality, it is not that simple to side to Hong Kong nationalism POV, while violate NPOV. Matthew_hk tc 18:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the letter, the link is "502 Bad Gateway". For Apple Daily, circulation does not mean reliable. Daily Mail was removed as WP:reliable source. Also, secondary source sometimes more weighed that primary source, which Encyclopædia Britannica use British-American. Matthew_hk tc 18:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the letter, the letter written in 2009 that archived in wayback machine in 2009, was written after his Alzheimer's disease circa 2004, which clearly stated the authors were "Charles and May Wan Kao". It may qualified as a WP:primary source for change his mind or sort, but as he was declared he belongs to the world in 2000: the letter use a lengthy paragraph to explain the " Charles really does belong to the world! " Also, it did not support your claim that he declared he is a Hongkonger as a sense of personal identity. Matthew_hk tc 19:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which only in 5 February 2010 open letter had that statement of "Charles studied in Hong Kong for his high schooling, he has taught here, he was the Vice-Chancellor of CUHK and retired here too. In all he has lived in Hong Kong for over 30 years. So he is a Hong Kong belonger. " Matthew_hk tc 19:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on nationality

DO NOT INCLUDE
There is consensus not to include either Charles K. Kao's nationality or whether Kao is a Hong Kong native in the lead section. Editors believe that reliable sources do not give consistent descriptions of this matter. — Newslinger talk 08:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request on comment on nationality in lead. Should it use Chinese born Hongkong-British-Amercian (full relevant nationality and ethnic group), or British-Amercian (according to Nobel Foundation) or none (according to his personal statement in Standard Chinese (Mandarin) in RTHK documentary and interview, which was quoted by notable columnist Simon Shen) Matthew_hk tc 18:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The version with 4 place name was supported by Febetsh23 which revert ip vandalism in 2017 (Special:Diff/773424107)
The version was only vandalized/edited again in Special:Diff/805866748 (to Chinese-born Hong Kong ) and then Special:Diff/815779348 (to Chinese born Shanghaiese) and then just Hong Kong (version diff to be filled)
Scrolled back to page history, Chinese born Hongkong-British-Amercian was the stable version which at least appeared back to 2013
The version with just British-Amercian were supported by external source Encyclopædia Britannica and Nobel Foundation Matthew_hk tc 18:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The version none was at least appeared in 2010 in wikipedia and recently in BBC
The version "Hong Kong physicist" seem only appeared in 2018, with ignoring secondary source such as Nobel Foundation and Mesher, Kelsey (October 15, 2009). "The legacy of Charles Kao". Mountain View Voice. Retrieved November 30, 2009. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) which stay in this article for a long period without objection. Matthew_hk tc 21:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant MoS would be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context: "Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. " as well as "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable.". Matthew_hk tc 21:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have again ignored most of my arguments. The issue at stake is whether Sir Charles Kao is a Hong Kong native. It's not about his nationality because Hong Kong itself is not a nationality option. The title of this debate is wrong from the beginning. For your information, a Hong Kong native may possess Chinese nationality and/or British nationality (overseas) and/or foreign nationalities. The identity of a Hong Konger is normally determined by the possession of the Hong Kong permanent resident status, which is not a nationality. According to your claims, we may not be able to refer Hong Kong people of different occupations as "Hong Kong businessman", "Hong Kong judge", "Hong Kong politician" and "Hong Kong singer", etc. becuase Hong Kong is not a nationality and they may possess different nationalities. What you suggest is a threat to the high degree of automony enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong and is against the long-established norm of referring Hong Kong people in Wikipedia.
As I have already mentioned, Sir Charles and Lady Kao have ultimately asserted in 2010 that Sir Charles was a Hong Kong belonger. We are not in a position to dispute the authencity of the letter, which are officially issued by Sir Charles and his wife. Besides, the leader of Hong Kong and the Chief Secretary for Administration of Hong Kong have both asserted that Sir Charles is indeed a Hong Kong native. The most influential Hong Kong English-language newspaper, the South China Morning Post, have also referred him as a Hong Kong native. These are the most powerful testimonies to showcase Sir Charles's identity as a Hong Kong native. It seems that you have censored away all the reliable sources that you do not like or do not support your claims. However, the sources you have quoted are either outdated or lacking relative authorities. If the Nobel Foundation categorises the laurates by nationalities, then the reference value is low because Hong Kong is not a nationality. Furthermore, I have watched the RTHK programmme you have cited. What Sir Charles actually concludes in the programme is that he thinks he belongs to where he live. The most straight-forward interpretation to that statement is that he spent the remainder of his life and most of his life in Hong Kong, so he is indeed a Hong Kong native. Being a Hong Kong native does not contradict his own belief as a "world citizen". --Clithering (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Clithering: i don't want to bite new editor that had less than 10,000 edits but please wait for RFC before your disruptive editing. You can say wikipedia is so bureaucratic, but i already stated policies such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context and WP:primary source (which wikipedia prefer secondary source). Charles K. Kao was notable as a UK citizen and an employee of ITT (and its subsidiary Standard Telephones and Cables) which publish that optic communication paper in 1966, as well as further works in US as US citizen as employee of ITT . You can say as the head of CUHK, he may also notable as Hong Konger, which all three place are relevant to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context, so either Hongkong-British-American or none, but certainly not listing Hong Kong only, as many secondary source outside Hong Kong did not use that as his nationality, but British-American (Nobel Foundation, Encyclopædia Britannica) or none (BBC) or even PRC as error (footnotes d).
For the 2009 and 2010 open letters, by common sense his wife is the ghost writer of those article, but we did not interpret the statement. But it clearly use "he" not "i" in the lettes, which most probably written by his wife rather than as a formality called himself as "he" instead of "i"
However, as it was written on behalf with his husband, i don't think it really contradict Charles K. Kao's 2000 statement as world citizen, rather it just need to quote both 2009 and 2010 statements, where 2010 was the year that Kao's Alzheimer foundation was founded.
While according to Charles K. Kao's autobiography, his parent followed him to migrate to U.K., so it is not that simple as expat in U.K. Also for his US life, he works and retired there, with his children and grandchildren live and work in US. It just the 2010 open letters after his Alzheimer's disease, the "co-written" letter that changed the tone from "Charles [Kao] really does belong to the world!" to "Hong Kong belonger". However, the "world citizen" POV was interpreted by Simon Shen as an example of future Hong Konger way of life, which it seem a notable interpretation by a secondary source. Matthew_hk tc 12:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Senior Wikipedian, please mind your language. I am not indiscriminately vandalising wikipedia pages. We are different in opinions but we are making valid arguments. In any event, I do not think you are in a position to judge my edits as "disruptive", especially when you are in the centre of the debate. --Clithering (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With more literature review. TVB, the Hong Kong TV channel, use Chinese Americans (Chinese: 美籍華人) in 2018 (the news article about his death).
NY Times in 2009, use "All three of the winning scientists [of 2009 Nobel Prize of Physics] hold American citizenship. Dr. Kao, 75, was born in Shanghai and is also a British citizen".
BBC in 2009, use "was born in Shanghai, China, in 1933 and holds UK-US citizenship", none of those reliable secondary source (TVB was criticized by Hong Konger nowadays, but keep that aside) supports yours Hong Kong superiority POV. Matthew_hk tc 18:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • None (Summoned by bot) There's no consensus in reliable sources, thus any option is basically WP:OR. signed, Rosguill talk 04:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • None (as nominator of the RFC) Either according to Charles Kao's personal statement in 2000 as well as Shen's interpretation, or according to some reliable source in 2018 that omitting to mention nationality. Or by MoS, none of the "nationality" really relevant to his work, which he works in fibre optic was tied to his employer ITT Corporation (which owned Standard Telephones and Cables), a multi-national conglomerate, which sent Kao to Germany as an expat. In modern day, scientific research can be funded by companies, as well as research can be done by expat in another place of the world , so no such "relevant nationality" as a context, which also shown in reliable source. NYTimes in 2018 just used "Working in Britain in the late 1960s, Dr. Kao and a colleague...", "was born in Shanghai" or quoting other people "pride of Hong Kong people" by Carrie Lam, but without a direct statement on his nationality. Matthew_hk tc 03:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong is not a nationality. --Clithering (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then according to the MoS, only nationality should be listed. As you ruled out Hong Kong as nationality, then it is even more not appropriate to list him as Hong Kong scientist or other stuff. Matthew_hk tc 16:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is the law, not me, to rule out Hong Kong as nationality. It is meaningless to compare if the sources you have quoted, such as the Nobel Prize website, categorise people simply by their nationality. If the MoS is incompatible, the management may consider conducting a review where appropriate. If it is unsuitable to refer to Sir Charles as a Hong Kong scientist basing on your argument, I am afraid all Hong Kong people will also be deprived of their Hong Kong identity in Wikipedia. --Clithering (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on source. For actor based in Hong Kong, no doubt there are referred as Hong Kong actor in reliable source even they had American nationality. Some sub-nation, such as Puerto Rico and Bermuda, we do list them as "Puerto Rico" nationality for example in football (as member of Puerto Rico national soccer team). For Kao's case. Before he returned to British Hong Kong as a professor, he only spent 5 years in the colony as a secondary school student and political/economic refugee, while having an actual citizenship in UK and work and educated there and make him famous there, which 2009 reliable source reflected that fact. If you want to bend the MoS, please go somewhere else.
Also i don't believe some source can't tell the difference of China and Hong Kong. Andy Lau was referred as Hong Kong actor by New York Times ( International Herald Tribune) but not Hong Kong[-based] scientist for Charles K. Kao, then just accept the practice in reliable source and respect the fact that his research are done in UK and US . Matthew_hk tc 10:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mention nationality in lead. The sources this discussion have dug up so far show that (1) sources don't agree on what nationality to give him in a one-liner description and (2) Charles Kao himself prefers not to identify with a particular nationality or ethnicity. His primary achievements are as a physicist and academic, not a politician or statesman, so pinning down a one-phrase description of his nationality in the lead sentence would be a disservice to Kao himself. I would further advocate that we move the paragraph about his national identity from the lead to the "later life" section. Deryck C. 16:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Employer

I discovered that in the Nobel lecture, https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/kao_lecture.pdf , Kao's wife presented that he worked for Standard Telephones and Cables and then for ITT Corporation at its subsidiary Standard Telecommunication Laboratories, while wiki article did said Standard Telephones and Cables had sold assets to ITT. So, when Kao worked in STL, STL is belongs to ITT or Standard Telephones and Cables?

Moreover, the current version of wiki article stated , "Standard Telecommunication Laboratories (STL) in Harlow, England, the research centre of Standard Telephones and Cables." is that wrong?

Probably the citation UCL used wiki as circular citation? Matthew_hk tc 18:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I have protected the article for three days to stop the edit warring. There's an RFC already taking place on how to describe Mr Kao's nationality, please participate in this. Fish+Karate 10:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

edit protected, 1 October 2018

Add those after the 2009 open letter in the opening paragraph:

However, in February 2010 open letter by the couple, it declared " Charles studied in Hong Kong for his high schooling, he has taught here, he was the Vice-Chancellor of CUHK and retired here too. In all he has lived in Hong Kong for over 30 years. So he is a Hong Kong belonger."<ref>{{cite press release|url=http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/cpr/charleskao/letter-e.html|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20101227001800/http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/cpr/charleskao/letter-e.html|title= Message from Prof. and Mrs. Charles K. Kao (5 February 2010) |date=5 February 2010|accessdate=1 October 2018|archivedate=27 December 2010|first=Charles K.|last=Kao|first2=May Wan|last2=Kao|publisher=Chinese University of Hong Kong}}</ref> (or trim it a bit) Matthew_hk tc 11:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This would appear to be part of the nationality issue being discussed in the RFC. Fish+Karate 12:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 19 Incorrect.

His knighthood no doubt appears in the Gazette somewhere, but it's not in the one in this footnote.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_K._Kao&oldid=1053611000"