Talk:List of sinologists

Order

To me, it seems that listing scholars by country of origin rather than strictly alphabetically seems to go against an internationalist approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.71.92.74 (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And in some cases they're listed where they're currently employed and in other cases (e.g. Oliver), they're listed under the country they're from. Hopeless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.194.104 (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stephen owen cross reference is to a canadian politician of the same name, not the sinologist. rm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.195.237 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC

Question

Should be order these names alphabetically under a heading for each country of origin? Thanks. --198.59.190.201 23:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

This list is waiting to be sorted alphabetically.--K.C. Tang 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some moron seems to have arranged them by alphabetical order of given name, not family name.Baldeggboy (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

What's the point of this page, when there's already Category:Sinologists?Baldeggboy (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muller

BabelStone

Taking Muller away from the Japan listing because Japan is not his country of origin is racist or at best leads to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.110.156.26 (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting concept of racism. Charles Muller's article does not say that he is Japanese, but does indicate that the article is a "biography of an American academic" "about a United States writer of non-fiction". If he is merely resident in Japan then he does not belong under the Japan section. If it can be shown that he has Japanese citizenship as well as residency then can be put in the Japan section, but I don't see the evidence yet. Unless you provide a reference to his Japanese citizenship I will move hi back to the US section. BabelStone (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of Category?

Above (section titled Why?) is the question of why this is a list when the category already exists. Can someone articulate the advantage of this being a list so we can make best use of it? RJFJR (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Sinology

Although I have my doubts about the nature of this list, I have even greater doubts about maintaining two lists. Therefore I have merged data from the list at Outline of sinology#Sinologists and propose to delete that list (leaving the Main Article link).

See my comments at Talk:Outline of sinology#Outline. ch (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of political scientists: not a clear cut list or category

Just a quick explanation for why I removed a number of distinguished China scholars from this list, which again raises questions about the viability of this list that were brought up in previous discussions on this page.

I understand why BabelStone reasonably questions the removal, but the definition at Sinology is the more traditional one, an academic who studies China "primarily" through language, etc. which does not include the social sciences or political science. Stuart Schram, as BabelStone rightly points out, certainly used language, but not "primarily." It's true that "Sinologist" is now used to mean anyone who studies China, but if we used that definition we would have to drastically expand this list to include every scholar who studies China. As it is, I would be hard pressed to defend keeping Spence, Fairbank, and other historians, but if we don't leave political scientists off, we logically would have to include economists, sociologists, etc. And if we restore Schram, we would have to restore the others and then add the other political scientists.

We have Category:Sinologists and Category:American sinologists, but maybe we should add one for "China scholars" or "China academics" or some such. Yikes, what a headache to go through and find those scholars and make such a distinction. What do you think?ch (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revising List - Definition of Sinology

I think it may be good to revise the list as there are some cases where considering them a "sinologist" may be a stretch. For example: Dimitri Kitsikis.

Although the definition is unclear I understand, and today may include a more broad range of subjects relating to China, sinology and sinologist in my opinion ought to be ascribed to someone who: studies China, Chinese or relevant field, and/or has written or commented on Chinese language, history, culture and so on significantly. If we include the occasional political scientist's commentary on China from writers who specialise on other subjects for their whole career, then this list would be unwieldy and not very useful.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kullick (talk • contribs) 03:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]