Talk:List of Chinese Nobel laureates

untitled

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))

Because ethnicity[1] is inherently ambiguous. This is one of the reasons why this article, and others like it should be removed. There is a more solid discussion going on below at the RfC section, should you wish to participate. --Anon1597 (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think in the main list of this article those nine laureates' ethnic Chinese background is unambiguous as described in their nobel autobiographies and biographies, and if we read authorized American newspapers and online articles, Kao, Lee, Yang, Tsui are all described as either chinese or American chinese, and Ting, Tsien surely are also American chinese, Chu is the 2nd American chinese pointed into the President's cabinet. Gao in french literature is described as français d'origine chinoise. About the lareates's ethnic chinese background is unambiguous in the main list. According to the explanation from 43tthsrxnj, the additional short list also seems essential. The title of the whole article sounds suitable here. (K-k-k (talk) 14:15, 9 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[2]. 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[3][4] with no additional content over the already existing list[5]. Further, the definition it uses to warrant itself (Ethnic Chinese) is ambiguous. It should be noted that there was at least one active editor[6] 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 edited the article. My purpose to add the additional list of "Other laureates born in China" was just to clarify three China-born laureates are normally not considered as Chinese people. Based on your argument, then this small short additional list is necessary here, for clarifying the ambiguity. Another, in the List of Japanese Nobel laureates (made by User:Buhuzu, improved by User:SGGH) Nambu is an American citizen and Shimomura is also remarked as US citizenship in Nobel's website, they both were born in Japan and people normally say they are Japanese. To sum up, the additional list of "Other laureates born in China" is quite necessary, and, is just to discriminate such ambiguity u've said. (43tthsrxnj (talk) 01:27, 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))

You're proposing we integrate all these separate pages back into the main page? I like that idea. --Anon1597 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I do not really have a proposal for this stuff. I'd like to delete all items about nationality and ethnicity of Nobel Prize laureates including the main page because Nobel Prize (Mr. Nobel's will) does not take a laureate's nationality or ethnic background into account. (Alex Needham (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

If people want the Indian item to stay, the Chinese to stay, the Hungarian to stay, or any of the Categories to stay, I can understand and I won't really support or oppose ... (Alex Needham (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

What people want is not the issue at hand though, whether this page is in violation of Wikipedia policies is. Please refer to the original post for the alleged infringements. --Anon1597 (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So obviously people want this article at least to stay here, hehe. Though I don't really support or oppose to it, I too don't consider this item is in violation of Wikipedia policies. Please think a bit about what I'm saying. (Alex Needham (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

I think in the main list of this article those nine laureates' ethnic Chinese background is unambiguous as described in their nobel autobiographies and biographies, and if we read authorized American newspapers and online articles, Kao, Lee, Yang, Tsui are all described as either chinese or American chinese, and Ting, Tsien surely are also American chinese, Chu is the 2nd American chinese pointed into the President's cabinet. Gao in french literature is described as français d'origine chinoise. About the lareates's ethnic chinese background is unambiguous in the main list. According to the explanation from 43tthsrxnj, the additional short list also seems essential. The title of the whole article sounds suitable here. (K-k-k (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

till now I cannot see a conflict with Wikipedia regulations, for me this article is well-cited & paragraphed thus fine. I am a discussant and editor of Nobel awardees esp. Kao, i suggest to keep this article like tht (LimoMoMoLg (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)).

Ethnicity[7] is not how others perceive you, but how the individual perceives itself. This invalidates those references. The problem still is that noone has attempted to clarify the definition of 'ethnic Chinese' used. But perhaps I am being too thorough about neutrality and knowledge... --Anon1597 (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at yourself Anon1597, at beginning without any detailed discussion you just mudded on this article left many tags, it even was not the way of doing an article here in wiki, ppl dnt do things in tht impolite way. It's not u r so-called neutral, u r unpersuadable. (LimoMoMoLg (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Dude ONLY you are still being screwed here, 1) those references are laureates' autobiographies. 2) ethnic group/background can not be JUST claimed by individual self, but by genetical inheritance, definitely not by random rootless self-claiming, and also defined by people. 3) so many dudes already told you again and again illustrated so much with so many examples, u just cant really get the point. 4) really it looks like you lack general knowledge, and your purpose is hostile here. (LimoMoMoLg (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Genetic variability between individuals of an 'ethnic' group is higher than the variability between different 'ethnic' groups[8]. It is quite saddening to see that no one here seems to bring any real arguments to the table. Also please refrain from ad hominem attacks, as they contribute nothing. --Anon1597 (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

By viewing previous arguments, i think you misunderstand many concepts especially the ethnicity. According to the definition of ethnicity from Wikipedia, this article especially its first list has no problem. The article does not hold conflicts with Wikipedia's rules. (NIUREN (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

I don't see any problem with this article, I think it should be kept. I don't see how the decision to have an article or not should be based on the importance of the article.Chhe (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your argument, the article is acceptable. On some level it provides valuable information to users. (NIUREN (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

This article is fine. However advize to create another article: List of Chinese-American Nobel Laureates. (Alice Muller (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

Really? A new article just to repeat the same people. The real question here is what relationship does these Chinese ethnos and Nobel Prizes have? Can we honestly make an article for Chinese ethnicity and the Nobel Prize. If not, what purpose does this list serve? Bulldog123 02:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dalai Lama

Is the Dalai Lama ethnic Chinese by definition? Tibetans are one of the many ethnic groups native to China. 112.118.149.119 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

When people say "ethnic Chinese", they mean the dominant "Han" population. The Dalai Lama would be probably be offended to be labelled as such, given his life as leader of a people chafing under (Han) Chinese rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.80.129 (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

propose rename

Per the recent AfD (particularly comments made by DGG et al), I propose we rename this article to List of Chinese Nobel laureates. Comments? Ray^Talk 16:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Support: That was the original title of this article. Somebody unilaterally moved this article to "List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates" for a more "formal" title, but that has only caused problems (as seen in the discussions above) and an AfD. Quigley (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and been bold about it. Given that the list already includes people who are not ethnically Chinese by any useage of the phrase, I don't think this will be too controversial. Ray^Talk 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment This title is not controversial but the inclusion criteria is. We ought to keep only those who are properly "Chinese" on the list, which means citizenship in The People's Republic of China. I can see an argument for Taiwanese citizens also being on the list given political disputes over "China", but "Chinese" is not an ethnicity. I'm going to remove all non-Chinese from the list.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Category

I notice that tyhis article is highly disputed and the word "Chinese" has a wide range of meanings, and can represents or implies such as nationality, citizenship, birthplace, culture, and/or ethnity. So I would like to suggest to categorize the article into 4:

1. China-born Chinese: including those Laureates who were born in the (current) territories of the Great China (People's Republic of China, Republic of China, HK SAR, Macao SAR, etc.)
2. Foreign-born Chinese: including those Chinese who were born outside China, eg., American Chinese. Their ethnity belongs to Chinese (ethnity).
3. Tibetan people, or any other minority ethnity active in China/Taiwan/HK/Macao, etc.
4. Laureates born in China, however they are not Chinese ethnity.

Otherwise this article would be deleted. (WikiExpert1978 (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

The proposed way of grouping seems comprehensive. I accept this proposal. (Qergrbvb vbhjyu (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

There is no one Chinese "ethnicity". The Nobel committee also specifically does not list it's prize recipients by ethnicity. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course Chinese is ethnic concept, in many countries like US, UK, Canada all list out Chinese ethnicity in demographic studies, see Chinese American, Chinese Canadian, Chinese British, etc. (43tthsrxnj (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

Yes, the term is ambiguous. However, when we break down a list of people (Nobel laureates) by country, then we have to choose a mapping of people to countries, rather than trying to accommodate many mappings in one breakdown, or else we have a mess. This breakdown is by the laureate's own nationality. Largoplazo (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I think several editors including you and you have made this article too complicated. If it's ok, the article should stay as simple as its initial version. Or we can just bandon (delete) it. (43tthsrxnj (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

I find the inclusion of some of these people in this article offensive. Any white American Nobel laureate has ancestry elsewhere, but nobody is digging up the national origins of American laureates and adding them to lists of French laureates and Swedish laureates and Italian laureates because they might have a grandparent from any of those other countries. I would be aghast if I won a Nobel award and then found someone had added me to a list of Austrian laureates because at least two of my grandparents have roots in Austria. Wikipedia ought not to treat being of Chinese ethnic heritage as somehow "stickier" than other ethnic heritages. Further, the breakdown into Han and non-Han for people who are or have been of Chinese nationality is also offensive. Shall we break down a list of American Nobel laureates further into whites and non-whites? Largoplazo (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Bla bla bla. As stated, all definitins determinin ethnic Han persons are included and therefore all of those listrd laurettes more than qualify to be listed here. You are not stupid sre you, Just your own personal opinions are not facts and therefore my oriunal edits do not violate any wikipedia rules. I believe that its perfectly reasonable that ethnic Chinese should have their own list of nobel laurettes just like how the ethnic jews are able to have their own list despite many of the listed winners being atheist at birth or before their awards. I guess acording to your idiot logic we should go around scolding the jews for beig dirty racist parasitic subhumans then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.19.235.237 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The antagonistic and histrionic nature of your comments are duly noted. See WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

This has nothing to do with any dispute about facts since I don't dispute factually anything stated here about the people who were listed. So your comment on personal opinion versus facts isn't relevant, and makes you appear not to be aware of what the argument is about. If you're going to respond to arguments, you need to understand them first.

There is an entire series of articles titled "List of X Nobel laureates" and each of them is about laureates from the country in question. As I said above, being Chinese is no sticker than being of any other nationality, and this is an article about people of Chinese nationality, not Chinese ethnicity or Chinese ancestry. On the other hand, if it's about Chinese ancestry, then the Dalai Lama doesn't belong here. Again, see WP:COATRACK.

Should all people in Latin America with any Spanish ancestry be included on lists of Spanish X? In addition to or instead of inclusion lists of Peruvian X or Argentinian X or Colombian X? Because, after all, they are all ethnically Spanish. But they aren't Spanish, for purpose of articles listing people by nationality.

You wrote "I believe that its perfectly reasonable that ethnic Chinese should have their own list of nobel laurettes." Fine. But this is an article about Chinese nationals. If you want to create lists of Nobel Prize winner by ethnic origin, then go ahead and do that. But don't conflate nationality with ethnicity. Heaven knows, there are enough people in the world treated as second class citizens because people in the country where they and their parents and their grandparents and their great-grandparents have lived insist on seeing their ethnicity as their nationality and refusing to regard them as rightful citizens in their own countries.

Your final sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the context of this discussion. All it does is make you out to be someone who tries to see racism in any situation you possibly can. Largoplazo (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking of a friend, of Chinese ethnicity, whose ancestors have been in the U.S. since the 19th century, and who recently was complaining about how often people ask her where she's from, and then don't accept "California" or "The United States" (she lives in another country now) as her answer. I'm sure she wouldn't care to have Wikipedians including her on a list of Chinese people (though I'm equally sure she wouldn't mind being on a list of people of Chinese ancestry). Largoplazo (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That is not incorrect at all, but I suppose that the main reason why this page cannot focus purely on the passport nationality of the laureates is because of the special situation in which the Republic of China and People's Republic of China coexist, and the most importantly, both of them claim to be the continuance from the Chinese republic before 1950s. Pandorabox722 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"Chinese Diaspora" part has to be revised a little bit in advance.

I am a little bit worried about the current outline of the page that, once there start to appear Nobel laureates from Singapore (which somehow did not happen yet mysteriously), the chance is kinda high that a lot of them will be ethnically Chinese because of the rather peculiar demographic state of Singapore. Once this happens, this page might become quite blurry if it refers to Chinese Nobel Laureates or to Singaporean Nobel Laureates. I do not claim erasing the whole "Chinese Diaspora" part since we have to acknowledge the special situation in which the Republic of China and People's Republic of China coexist, but I do claim that this part has to be revised a little bit in the way that we clearly distinguish the laureates who have been involved either in the Republic of China or People's Republic of China during their lifetime, and people who were merely born to Chinese families in different countries other than the ROC and the PRC. Once again, I strongly believe that this revision has to be discussed in advance because it might cause a lot of confusion once there start to appear Nobel laureates from Singapore in near future. And as for Singapore, this concern is not too far-fetched as a lot of people already do kinda wonder why this did not occur in Singapore yet despite the local universities being highly evaluated in terms of their academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandorabox722 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It's confusing if we treat Chinese differently from every other nationality in the world, as though there's something especially magic about being Chinese or about the geopolitical circumstances surrounding the Chinese people over the generations in comparison with the geopolitical circumstances associated with every other nationality. My ancestors left—in two cases, fled—Russia, Poland, Austria-Hungary, Romania. I would not expect to find myself on a list of Russia, Polish, Austro-Hungarian, or Romanian anything, as I was born a US citizen in the United States. Further, bigotry finds sustenance in seeing groups of one's fellow nationals as "other" based on their ancestry, whether it's Jews throughout history who neighboring Germans didn't see as German, Poles didn't see as Poles, etc.; whether it's Latin Americans in the United States, Armenians in Turkey, Turks in Yugoslavia, Rohingya in Myanmar, Nepalese in Bhutan, Haitians in the Dominican Republic, etc. Americans of Chinese ancestry should be thought of as American, because they are, and I'm sure most, if not all, of them would prefer to be considered American. Largoplazo (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You certainly have a point there. Yet the problem actually boils down to (1) Republic of China ("Taiwan") and PRC somehow coexisting currently and (2) both of them claiming the continuity from the Chinese republic before 1950 + A lot of Chinese locals having fled ROC and PRC to a third-party country claiming themselves as refugees during this chaos. The consistent change in the outline of this specific page would not have been the case only if PRC did not endorse Sun Yat-Sen (which it somehow did) or if ROC decided it is not "China" anymore. Yet, in the meantime, I do agree that people who had nothing to do with either ROC and PRC during their own lifetime (being born to a Chinese American family or to a Chinese Singaporean family, etc.) must not be listed in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandorabox722 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I am actually very satisfied with the current version of the article (oldid=933796468), and would like to assert that the all future revisions of this article from now on has to maintain this current outline. There might be some potential criticisms left against the current version from the contributors who have been advocating the One-China Policy, but in that specific case, I suppose we may reconcile by listing the Taiwanese laureates in the column "Uncertain Laureates," which already exists in the current version for a Tibetan laureate. Yet, I am very delighted with the current version for finally coming up with the tangible outline by which Chinese Americans and Chinese Singaporeans will be excluded from this article from this point. Pandorabox722 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Being Chinese isn't different from being of any other nationality

@Widoezix: Throughout Wikipedia, we treat people as being of the nationality with which they were born or that they acquired through citizenship. Can you explain why, when it comes to Nobel Laureates, you believe that this is different for being Chinese? You commented that my change was unjustified (falsely, after I had already justified it above and in my edit summary). Well, can you justify treating non-Chinese people of Chinese ancestry differently from people of any other ancestry that differs from their own nationality? Can you explain why such a justification wouldn't be racist? (Also, see my comments in the previous two sections.) Largoplazo (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Liu Xiaobo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)