The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, which defaults to keep, but with a recommendation to rename the article.

The arguments for deletion include:

The Nobel Prize committees do not take into consideration race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or other such categorizations upon choosing a prize recipient, and an intersection of ethnicity and the Nobel Prize is not notable.
Per WP:EGRS, "Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic", which is not present in this case.
There is no standalone article about the Nobel Pize and its relation with China, so a list is unnecessary.
"Ethnicity" is not the same as "nationality", and there is technically no such thing as an ethnic Chinese.

The arguments for keeping include:

WP:BLPCAT et al. do not apply as this is a list, not a category.
There are enough sources to demonstrate the notability of this topic.
Ethnicity vs. nationality does not matter too much here, and we should group together all Chinese laureates.

This may look quite similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, but the discussion varies more than one would imagine. Both AfDs include the discussion of applying WP:EGRS/WP:BLPCAT/WP:LISTPEOPLE to lists rather than only pages in the category namespace. In the spirit of BLP, I think it is indeed safe to apply these guidelines and policies to lists as well as categories. However, there is no consensus on how to apply them to this list.

The case of a standalone article along with this list is a fairly minor issue, as there was little discussion on why one is needed for the other and why they cannot exist independent of each other.

The Nobel committee's considerations may be grouped with the notability issue. I think there are enough sources to discuss China and the Nobel Prize, but this ties in also with the ethnicity/nationality debate. Should a list exist on something that technically does not, and do the sources address this? Several participants in this AfD suggested renaming and extending the scope of the article, which would solve many of the issues. Although there would still be ambiguities relating to its inclusion criteria, it is not wild enough to prefer deletion over the renaming route.

As a result, I don't think there is sufficient consensus to delete the article, nor is there consensus to keep it in its current form. I recommend a rename and reorganization, but I'm not sure how that will turn out—it's not clear how to proceed with that from the AfD, as there are legitimate concerns over the inclusion criteria. /ƒETCH COMMS / 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Nobel Prize committee explicitly states its prize is awarded without consideration to ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. Ethnicity, by itself, is not notable and the policy on lists states that a good way of judging whether something is listcruft is by seeing if an article can be written about its contents. List of Freemasons exists because of Freemasonry... but List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates doesn't have a The Chinese & The Nobel Prize article to substantiate it. This is a case of Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory and Wikipedia:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_orientation (AKA: WP:OLIST) Bulldog123 22:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this list serves no valid purpose. Yworo (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, violates BLPCAT, NPOV, and WP:EGRS. Ethnicity only important when directly related to article subject's activities. No valid purpose, only use is for vanity and bragging.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To quote from WP:OC#CATGRS "...people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently to a Lutheran or Methodist". If anyone wants to suggest that a list isn't compiled by ethnic categorisation, then I'd like to ask how else they would define the method used? It seems to me that any such method could only be either (a) meaningless, or (b) a blatant attempt to bypass Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list, not a category, so WP:OC does not apply. WP:BLPCAT does not apply to lists based on ethnicity, only those based on religious belief and sexual orientation, or which suggest a poor reputation. Being Chinese is none of these. Nationality- and ethnicity-based lists are specifically exempted from relevance requirements at WP:LISTPEOPLE. --Avenue (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment A list is compiled through categorisation, and if one follows through the various policy statements the logic is quite clear: WP:LISTPEOPLE states that Lists of people must follow Wikipedia's policy on biographical information about living people". WP:BLP states that it applies for "categories, lists and navigation templates", WP:COP states in turn that WP:EGRS applies regarding "categorization by ethnicity" - "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity..." Being ethnically Chinese is not relevant to winning a Nobel Prize. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - There are important differences between lists and categories. Perhaps the most relevant is that lists can include much more explanatory content than mere category membership. So I think a position based on the arguable claim that "lists are built through categorisation" misses the point. Anyway, as I pointed out above, the first guideline you mention (WP:LISTPEOPLE) specifically exempts ethnicity-based lists of people from those relevance requirements. So either there is a flaw in your long chain of logic, or our guidelines and policies must contradict each other (or both).
  - (Just to be clear, here is the passage from WP:LISTPEOPLE I mean: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism. However, it might well include Sigmund Freud. [...] An exception is nationality/ethnicity. List of Albanians includes persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Albania.") --Avenue (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Avenue, I think you misunderstand what WP:LISTPEOPLE says. A List of Albanians is ok because the criteria are 'Albanian' and 'Notable': the list can include all 'notable Albanians': no Albanian can be excluded for any reason other than non-notability, which is the normal Wikipedia standard for rejecting anything. That is really all it says on the subject. A 'List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates' on the other hand is (taking as read that winning a Nobel Prize is notable) a synthesis - the intersection of ethnic Chinese and Nobel laureates: there is nothing notable about the intersection (or if there is, strong WP:RS will be needed to show this notability, e.g. that it is discussed in a meaningful manner in appropriate texts as an intersection with an explanation for why this intersection is itself notable). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - What Andy says is pretty much on the money. Bulldog123 19:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If our prohibition against novel synthesis is the crux of your argument, do you agree that all it takes to refute it is the discovery of reliable sources substantively linking the Chinese and the Nobel prize? That honestly doesn't seem too hard. For instance, there's an entire book titled The politics of cultural capital: China's quest for a Nobel Prize in literature. There are many other reliable sources addressing Chinese concerns over Chinese laureates—sometimes the lack of such, and sometimes their feeling that inappropriate ones have been chosen (e.g. the 14th Dalai Lama, Gao Xingjian, and Liu Xiaobo). There's certainly enough out there to support an article on the topic (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). It doesn't matter for this AfD that it hasn't been written yet. --Avenue (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You can search the "Chinese" and "[anything]" and find something relating the two. The point is that it needs to be well-established (per WP:FRINGE) and encyclopedic. Not every news article ever published is worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. That's why they are news articles and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Also, everything you cited is fine to mention somewhere (e.g., an article on Chinese governmental repression) but none of it is enough for an entirely separate article. Bulldog123 21:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You can't find entire books on any intersection with "Chinese". Anyway, only the last of those links is to a newspaper. Another is to a journal article (and here's another one); the rest are books. --Avenue (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ethnic Chinese is not a notable criteria with regards to Nobel prizes. "Of Asian descent" or Asian Laureates (as opposed to Caucasian ones) would be fine. Nergaal (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain the distinction, i.e. why one is okay and the other is not? I can't see it, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have an article on black laureates, mainly because they are rare. Having a similar list on the laureates of East Asian descent would be fine since I believe they are also disproportionately few compared to the Caucasian laureates. Also, having a list on Chinese laureates when US, UK, and Germany each have over 100 laureates but have no separate list yet does not seem normal to me (also, wp:CFORK). Nergaal (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~I'd say that an article on black laureates may well possibly be merited, but that following from the discussion above, a list wouldn't be.~~ See WP:OC#CATGRS for more on this, and note in particular the suggestion that if reasonable grounds for an article on the subject cannot be found, a list cannot be created. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - An article on this topic seems perfectly feasible; see my response in the thread above. --Avenue (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think an article on this or black laureates is feasible. Honestly, give me one thing we could say? Bulldog123 20:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thinking about it, an article on black laureates would be highly problematical, given the widely-differing usage of the term in an international context. Perhaps what is really needed is a single article discussing the relationship between ethnicity and the award of Nobel laureates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think ethnicity is probably intertangled with nationalism here. Something like Ethnicity, nationalism and the Nobel Prize could be broad enough to provide plenty of reliably sourced material (e.g. [6]) while avoiding demarcation issues. By the way, we also have a List of Japanese Nobel laureates and Nobel laureates of India. --Avenue (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 07:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 07:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and any of these kinds of lists, be they religion, ethnicity, age, or whatnot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the rest. Ethnicity needs to be added to BLP and this is being discussed. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That might become a valid argument if and when ethnicity is added to BLPCAT, but it isn't yet. It also relies on there being no sources substantively discussing individual laureates Chinese ethnicity. I have already found some for the more controversial selections; see above. --Avenue (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pending a rationale for deletion. Note, any category-relate guideline cannot be a basis for deletion. This is not a category.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EGRS is a guideline for "categorization" not Wiki-Categories. The definition for "categorization" can be found at Wiktionary. When you put person A in List of X, you categorize that person as X. Barack Obama in the List of US Presidents is categorized as a US President.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently you missed the giant swath of the nomination rationale that talks about policy for lists. Bulldog123 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or perhaps he didn't think that was worth mentioning, since it has already been rebutted above. And that reading of WP:EGRS seems like a big stretch, since that guideline does not prescribe how lists should be handled at all. --Avenue (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course, the "Keep it because it does no harm" approach. Bulldog123 05:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, keep it by default because the basis for deletion is invalid. The stringent policies we apply to categories, that cannot be cited with an in-line source, cannot be applied lists, which can be cited with an in-line source. If you want to apply a policy promulgated specifically for categories to lists you have start an RFC or some other type of community consensus.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Avenue.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This and all other "ethnic" lists of this kind. WP:BLPCAT does in fact explicitly pertain to lits as well as categories. The addition of "ethnic" to BLPCAT is currently being discussed. That said, this list is inherently un-encyclopedic trivia. If the list were based on nationality, as in legal citizenship in a nation-state, instead of "ethnicity" it would be less problematic.Griswaldo (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per established precedent for such lists of notable individuals, as clarified in WP:SAL, WP:LSC, WP:LISTNAME, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTPEOPLE, this list is specifically per applicable policies and guidelines and serves the project and its readers. Had the list been a collection of redlinks, I would have opined differently. Note I had not heard of this particular AFD until brought to my attention by User:Bulldog123. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Avenue, and the list is informative. Davshul (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and all other ethnic lists of this nature. I don't see the difference between nationality and ethnicity in lists of this kind--they are both relevant considerations and equally encyclopedic--and both are sometimes disputed. My own preference is to not try to separate them, and to view "Chinese" as meaning any of ancestry, ethnicity or nationality. Trying to be too precise about these things leads to disputes. If we're going to reopen the question ofBLPCAt, I think the consensus might be to eliminate the restrictions altogether. the principle of BLP is do no harm, and it is enough if we do not list living people under ethnicities or religions or sexualities that they explicitly do not want to be listed in. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between nationality and ethnicity. Nationality is determined objectively by legal citizenship. "Ethnicity" can mean a million different things depending on who's doing the talking. In the current case, consider the fact that from a scholarly perspective there is no such thing as a "Chinese" ethnicity -- see List of ethnic groups in China and List of Chinese dialects to get a broad overview of the situation. There is of course a "Chinese" nationality, that is defined by geo-political boundaries. I'm curious which one of the various notions of "ethnicity" is at work in this list, because it appears to me that having been born within the national borders of the nation-state we call The People's Republic of China, or having parents who were, qualifies one as being ethnically "Chinese" according to this list ... or does it? Of all the ways you can cut the ethnicity pie, that's one of the more pathetic.Griswaldo (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! How did I miss this? As Griswaldo points out "from a scholarly perspective there is no such thing as a "Chinese" ethnicity": and more to the point, to the various ethnic groups loosely categorised as "Chinese" by outsiders, there definitely isn't. "Chinese" thus isn't covered in any case by the exceptions to categorisations permitted where "ethnicity" is a criteria. This makes the invalidity of this list under Wikipedia policy even more clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would add that this article appears only to have been nominated for deletion in order to support the augument for the deletion of the List of Jewish Nobel laureates. JackJud (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DGGs cogent rationale. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If Andy's interpretation of policy is correct. then it it is the policy that needs changing, not this article! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is The People's Republic of China the only nation in Category:Nobel laureates by nationality that has the peculiar subcategory of "ethnic Chinese" (and the currently discussed list) along with the national category? Why the special treatment? Is it ... gasp ... political? And people say that ethnicity and nationality are not controversial identifiers. This very list begs to differ.Griswaldo (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - The list is horribly presented and has multiple issues but none are grounds for deletion. There are clearly at least some Nobel Laureates whose reception of the prize comes about in a context that cannot be divorced either positively or negatively from their identity as ethnic Chinese, and thus the intersection is a non-trivial one. Issues of who belongs on the list and how to structure it can be dealt with at the talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Upon reflection, while the arguments above would apply to a List of Chinese Nobel laureates, I have trouble with the term "ethnic Chinese". Racial groupings such as "Jewish" and "African-American" can be resolved by reference to whether people self-identify in those groupings, but I can't see any immediate evidence that anyone on this list self-identifies as "ethnic Chinese" rather than merely "Chinese", and as such the list would have no valid entries and should thefore be deleted. I'd return to a Keep vote if anyone can show evidence of people identifying themselves as "ethnic Chinese" as something separate and different to being "Chinese". - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In fact, Ethnic Chinese is a term that Wikipedia deals with elsewhere by disambiguation, and if this list was to go forward it would probably need to settle on one of those disambiguated meanings rather than taking the group term, or otherwise explicitly state it was encompassing all of them. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:DustFormsWords, you seem to be rather misinformed about Wikipedia regarding the (supposed) category 'Race'. To quote from WP:EGRS: "While a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic, the intersection of subcategories of Category:Race are never applied to subcategories of Category:People." And as for suggesting that "Jewish" and "African-American" are racial groupings, I really don't know what to say... AndyTheGrump (talk)
  - I'm not sure in what sense I'm using "race" wrongly - Wikipedia articles race and race (classification of humans) confirm I'm using it in a correct and reasonably sensitivity-conscious manner - and I'm certainly not trying to be offensive. But the importance of it in human affairs (in a neutral way) is confirmed by the degree of sensitivity around it, and if it's important in human affairs, then providing that a clear and relatively-inoffensive system of definition can be found it in some circumstances can be an appropriate way to cross-categorise information. Here I think that race (in the sense of either a synonym for ethnicity or a way of denoting the cross-pollination of biology and culture) is NOT relevant, simply because no one relevant to the discussion self-identifies as something called "ethnic Chinese". There may possibly be a case for Han Chinese but that's not this discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, can I break that into two parts? (1) You seem to be suggesting I've used "race" incorrectly or offensively. I'm genuinely concerned to broaden my horizons as to how I might have been offensive or wrong, and correct that in future if necessary, so I'd invite you to elaborate on that on my talk page if you feel so inclined. And (2) you then bring up a policy argument relating to WP:EGRS, which I don't feel is valid, as that policy applies to categories, which are subject to different requirements to lists, and the restrictions in it are aimed at preventing over-categorisation and offensive categorisation, neither of which apply to lists. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not suggesting you are trying to be offensive, merely that you are a little confused: if 'African' was a racial category (which is highly dubious, but then all racial categorisations are, not because they are insensitive, but merely that they are arbitrary), 'American' definitely isn't. I'll not go into why 'Jewish' cannot possibly be 'a race' here, I'd suggest you read more on the subject yourself - I'd be glad to discuss this on my talk page, though it's getting late now, so don't expect an immediate response. Regarding the supposed distinction between categories and lists, I thought that it had been established that the criteria for inclusion were identical in both cases? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't see where it's established that the criteria are the same for lists and categories. To address the hypothetical that WP:EGRS is in any way relevant (not conceded), the section of WP:EGRS you quote is headed by a disclaimer that its wording is disputed, and then further down that policy under "Special Subcategories" it goes on to list Category:Native American politicians and Category:African American musicians as specifically valid categories, and says that whether a racial categorisation can intersect with another categorisation is based entirely upon whether there is a special notability to that cross-categorisation - which is exaclty what we're discussing here. And as I said, here there is not, simply because nobody seems to want to put their hand up as being notably "ethnic Chinese", whatever that means. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd missed that. Though does it mean 'racial' categories rather than 'ethnic'? It doesn't seem to be entirely clear, but I think 'ethnic' is more plausible given the general disapproval of categorising individuals by 'race'. I think this all illustrates how hopelessly complex it gets when trying to push people (who are awkward at the best of times) into convenient boxes. As I've suggested elsewhere, the simplest solution is to stop doing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The Wikipedia articles race and race (classification of humans) suggest "race" and "ethnicity" are, for at least some usages, interchangeable terms, so I don't think we can draw conclusions that the authors of the policy specifically meant one or the other. I agree that in an ideal world no-one anywhere would have much to say on the topic of race, but it not being an ideal world, clearly people do, both in the negative contexts of racism, the positive contexts of community and heritage, and in the reactive contexts of anti-discrimination and affirmative action. Wikipedia's job is to document the world, not to idealise it, so as long as these are terms relevant in the world, there'll be a need for Wikipedia to also use them in order to properly present information in context. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Regardless of what Wikipedia articles say, WP:EGRS itself is absolutely clear about making a distinction between ethnicity and 'race': "While a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic, the intersection of subcategories of Category:Race are never applied to subcategories of Category:People". If there was any ambiguity, why would this be in EGRS? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        In as much as there is a difference between race and ethnicity - not conceded - it's not relevant here because the article title is clearly referring to ethnicity, and therefore (if that's a different thing from race) not race. So the prohibition on cross-categorisation of race and people still wouldn't apply. And, as above, I remind you that that wording is under dispute and doesn't seem to square with the rest of the article. It's presumably the result of one editor expressing their intention poorly while drafting the policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. DustFormsWords' !vote of "delete" for Chinese Nobel laureates, while voicing "keep" for Jewish Nobel laureates would seem contradictory from the perspective of the average WP reader (who is not an editor). These folks will not get bogged-down in the esoteric minutiae of ethnicity, self-identification, etc. They're liable to see it simply as a breach of fairness and further "ethnic boosterism" (as Dingo1729 has so eloquently called it). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Reply - Not too worried about what "the average WP reader" thinks, especially as "the average WP reader who is not an editor" rarely visits AfDs. If YOU, Agricola, don't understand my logic, I'd be happy to explain it for you but otherwise I'm prepared to assume that anyone reading this debate has at least as much information literacy as you do and is therefore untroubled. To be clear, I'm in FAVOUR of a list of Chinese laureates, I'm AGAINST a list of "ethnic Chinese" laureates, on the basis that there's no evidence that anyone (including the "ethnic Chinese" in the list) considers "ethnic Chinese" to be a term with any meaning or notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you do understand you disapprove of a list of ethnic Chinese but approve of a list of ethnic Jews? Your reasoning for why is because more Jewish books/magazines publish self-aggrandizing, culture-promotional, politically-tinged, misleading synthesized material than Chinese books/magazines do [at least in the English language]. Not because there exists a well-sourced, majority-observed, encyclopedic, academic, and scholarly analysis of the subject (which there isn't -- unless you want to write an entire article about him). Bulldog123 22:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that DustFormsWords is entirely entitled to treat the 'Jewish' and 'Chinese' cases differently, Bulldog. There can be little room for doubt that 'Jewish' is an ethnicity (though like all large ethnicities, its boundaries are blurred and contextual, and will have its own subdivisions), whereas 'Chinese' seems not to be (particularly when it attempts to include Tibetans etc). I don't think either List is warranted, but I think each needs to be considered on its merits. My reasons for arguing against the 'Jewish' one were centred around the dubious way 'Jewish' was defined to include people who seemed not to be ethnically Jewish at all by any reasonable standards. My objection to this list is that it is imposing a dubious 'ethnic category' in the first place. Personally, I don't think we should be categorising Nobel laureates by ethnicity anyway, but while we do, we have to do it in a consistent way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, his reasons are different. That's true. I just wish there was more of a focus on the larger issue, than just on semantics. Bulldog123 23:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These lists have no reason for existence other than ethnic boosterism and bigotry. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Chinese Nobel laureates and write a proper article on it, including clarification of the different criteria applied to determine Chinese ethnicity. --JN 466 01:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an appropriate candidate for a rename. It's not that the list has an incorrect name; it's that it has an inappropriate topic. Procedurally the appropriate course is to delete this, and then start the Chinese Nobel laureates article. (Which wouldn't need to deal with ethnicity, only nationality.) In fact, you could start that article before waiting for this AfD to close. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as per DGG, would prefer rename to something like List of Chinese Nobel laureates Ray^Talk 02:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Per DGG" is not a recognizable keep rationale though after the last few days I have to recognize it as a popular mantra in AfD proceeding. DGG's rationale here is completely flawed since there is no such thing as a "Chinese" ethnicity in the first place. If you prefer you might simply say something like "per Keep" in the future.Griswaldo (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. AfD regulars and people who peruse these discussions (such as, say, closing admins) recognize this as shorthand for "I have read DGG's comments and reasoning, and agree in full." As somebody who is ethnically Chinese, I am amused to discover I do not exist. Ray^Talk 04:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ray, if you really quickly win a Nobel Prize in connection with being "ethnically Chinese" - such a peace prize for efforts in furthering the cause of displaced Chinese, or a medicine prize for curing a disease that disproprortionately targets ethnic Chinese - you could save us a lot of debate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ray I understand what it is shorthand for. I was expressing some frustration that we don't need to go into here, but apologies for the confusion regarding "per DGG". Regarding your other point you do clearly exist, and I take it that you are part of one of the several ethnic groups found natively living within the socio-political borders of the nation-state of China. Han most likely. I would not dispute that you or anyone else could be of a Chinese ethnic group, however, "ethnic Chinese" assumes one such umbrella group. There is such an umbrella group, but it is national in nature, and not ethnic. In my delete comment I noted that if this were a national category things would be different. Indeed for every other group named after a nation state it is a national category. Look at Category:Nobel laureates by nationality. But if it is a national category, then people who are not longer Chinese do not belong on the list. They belong on lists of Nobel laureates for the nation-states they are actually citizens of. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the perfectly sound arguments of DGG above. Renaming along the lines Ray suggests above would be reasonable. Nsk92 (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I have no problem with a list re-named as Ray suggests. However, such a list needs to comply with the other categories and lists found in Category:Nobel laureates by nationality, in being a list of "Chinese nationals" and not "ethnic Chinese". Currently we have categories for both "ethnic Chinese" and "Chinese nationals" when it comes to Nobel laureates, a situation otherwise unprecedented. Why is that? Why no "Ethnic Nepali Noble laureates"?Griswaldo (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current list could be well titled as List of Chinese Nobel laureates by ethnicity. --Avenue (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you want a list of Chinese nationals who are Nobel laureates sorted on the list by ethnic group? "Chinese Nobel laureates" means those who won the award while being citizens of China. We're on the same page here right?Griswaldo (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. I was describing what I currently see there, not what I want to see. "Chinese Nobel laureates" can have a broader meaning than merely citizenship at time of the award. But I have no real objection to the list being more tightly focussed, as you suggest. --Avenue (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm all for narrowing the scope to nationality, following Category:Chinese_Nobel_laureates instead of the ethnic category. I think we should stay away from the much more complicated topic of "ethnicity" in these types of lists.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, a list based on Chinese nationality is liable to be almost as controversial: should it include laureates from Tibet and Taiwan? The devil is in the details, as always. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan is a non-issue. They claim to be an independent nation-state and the world community recognize them as one. Tibet is tricker as many/most native Tibetans clearly do not consider themselves Chinese in terms of nationality. To use an example, the 14th Dalai Lama is the only "Tibetan Nobel laureate", according to Wikipedia. Should he be considered Chinese? I don't think so, because he renounces any status as a Chinese citizen and he lives in political exile abroad. I think you would find this to be the case in pretty much any example like Tibet. That we would have clear self-declared renunciations of nationality. It doesn't matter if the region falls within Chinese borders then. However, should a native Tibetan have no problem with being a Chinese citizen, then we should absolutely include them in the Chinese list.Griswaldo (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.