Talk:Shin Lim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.


Since the IP refuses to look at what I pointed, here is the source USA Today "Lim, who was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, lives in Boston and has Canadian and American citizenship..." --Masem (t) 00:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Also to add to what the IP is claiming: while he is confirmed to be Chinese enthnicity, that in no way automatically makes him a Chinese citizen. We know he was born in Canada and Canada follows jus soli principle (if you were born in Canada you are a Canadian citizen). --Masem (t) 01:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@masem Citizenships do change. People can change their citizenships, but they can never change their ethnicity. Therefore, he will always be Chinese-American as long as he keeps his American citizenship, in the same way that a black person who is American will always be an African-American as long as they keep their American citizenship. How come you pretend to be ignorant of such a simple and basic fact? You need an up-to-date source to prove that he is still a canadian "citizen" at the moment, though, because your link was from Sept 20th, 2018, which means that it is outdated. Also, he does not need to be a "Chinese citizen" to be called "Chinese-American", just as a person who is black and American does not need to be an "African citizen" to be called "African-American". So your reply about him not automatically being a "Chinese citizen" is in no way relevant to this discussion whatsoever.2604:6000:D786:6C00:FC0B:14FC:18B9:6346 (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@2604:6000:D786:6C00:FC0B:14FC:18B9:6346: To reiterate what Dawnleelynn said, is USA Today not a reliable source? Also, you yourself are failing to provide a reliable source for your own claim. CrispyCream27talkuser page 02:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────To be clear, I was being sarcastic when asking if USA Today was a reliable source. It's a mainstream source like the Washington Post, or the Associated Press, or CBS etc., that is a nationwide newspaper. It gets delivered to hotel rooms, of course it's reliable. It doesn't get more reliable. And the article is not that old in terms of its content; citizenship lasts for years at a time.dawnleelynn(talk) 04:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC) P.S. You can also find it in those newspaper vending machines. Should be no question about reliability. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Oh wow, I just found this list on Wikipedia and it shows that USA Today is #1 on the List of newspapers in the United States by circulation. I think this settles it quite clearly now. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@dawnleelynn Just because it's the most popular newspaper does not mean that it's a reliable source by any means. Popularity does not determine truthfulness. Furthermore, if even the New York Times, which has a much higher reputation among the American press, is not necessarily reliable because it had been found of lying on more than one occasion, then why should anyone consider the USA Today to be absolutely reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:D786:6C00:3DF7:791D:751C:69D4 (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed why should any source be found reliable? Nonsense! At any rate, I am not going to debate you on one fact out of several I made on that particular source. You whined for proof for days, and I provided it. No proof is good enough for you. If Shin Lim himself appeared to you in person with his papers, it still wouldn't be good enough for you. I will not spend any of my valuable time in debate. I've done my service; do with it as you will. Ciao! dawnleelynn(talk) 00:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
As a Canadian, I can quite assure you IP, that Canada is indeed a country. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@goodday First of all, whether canada is a country or not is no longer the main point, and has not been so for a long while in this discussion. So, please get a grasp for the point of discussion since then. But I will only briefly reply to your comment about canada's nation-status. As a canadian, of course you would want to call canada a country. But you are not a reliable source. On the other hand, your constitution is a reliable source, which states that the queen of England is officially the "head of state" and "highest leader" of canada. Therefore, canada can only be a de-facto colony of England. But that is it for this digression from the main topic, because I don't want to waste time on this digression anymore.2604:6000:D786:6C00:FC0B:14FC:18B9:6346 (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@crispycream27 I had already answered your question. Since you're asking me whether USA Today is a reliable source, I'm going to tell you that it is not, because, first of all, whether or not USA Today is a reliable source for anything depends on one's personal opinion. So it is not necessarily a reliable source. Furthermore, specifically for proof of citizenship status, the USA Today article that you used cannot be a reliable source simply because it is outdated from Sept. 20th, 2018. Therefore, you have failed to provide any reliable source that proves he still has "canadian citizenship" at present. He may no longer be a "canadian citizen", because he could have changed his citizenship status, especially considering the fact that he has been living in the U.S. for so long. So, it would be more accurate to call him Chinese-American, because his ethnicity can never change, in the same way that an African-American's black ethnicity can never change, or a Latino-American's Latino ethnicity can never change, either. Therefore, I don't need to provide further reliable source for my claim, because the reliable source had already been provided. Is this logic simple enough for you?2604:6000:D786:6C00:FC0B:14FC:18B9:6346 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

USA Today is a reliable work. There is no evidence that since that was published that Lim tried to drop his Canadian citizenship, and we don't second guess things like that. (He has to apply to get American citizenship obviously). He may have some Chinese ethncity, but at best, taht would make him a Chinese-Canadian-American, which is far too many terms. --Masem (t) 02:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@masem First of all, you can only say that it's your opinion that USA Today is "a reliable work". Just because you say so does not make it an objective fact. What's so hard to understand about that? But the point here is not about whether USA Today is a "reliable work" for anything based on anyone's opinion, but about the fact that the article through your link is simply outdated and therefore cannot be used to show current citizenship status. Yet, the wikipedia article on this page is written in the present tense. So it is not accurate. To be accurate, you could only claim that he WAS "canadian-American" as of Sept 20th, 2018. Unless you can provide up-to-date reliable sources on his present citizenship status, you have no current basis to continue to claim that he "is" a canadian-American. On the other hand, it would be entirely accurate to say that he is Chinese-American, because his ethnicity can never change, as I had pointed out multiple times already. I have already explained all of this to you and the others here more than once. So I'm wondering: Do you know how to read? How old are you? Have you graduated from grade school? Why do you need me to repeatedly explain this simple line of reasoning to you, as if you had never read it? And why do you even reply without having read my previous answers to your same comment?2604:6000:D786:6C00:FC0B:14FC:18B9:6346 (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
You've obviously have been around Wikipedia before, otherwise you wouldn't learn about talkpages & edit-summaries that quickly. So it leave one to wonder, who you really are. Furthermore, if you don't stop what you're doing? you'll be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Why are you only mainly concerned about my personal identity instead of the topic at hand? Either pay attention to the point of discussion, or leave if you are incapable of doing so. Or else, YOU'll be blocked.2604:6000:D786:6C00:FC0B:14FC:18B9:6346 (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@goodday Your replies contain not much of anything relevant to the main point of discussion. You have also failed to read my replies before making your own comment. Unless you start addressing the topic with relevant and well-reasoned comments, you're the one who should be blocked.2604:6000:D786:6C00:FC0B:14FC:18B9:6346 (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
You haven't provided any up-to-date reliable sources for the change you want made. You're obnoxious approach to this matter is making you a bore. You've already been reported at the Edit-war board. Take a hint. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
You haven't read ANY of my previous replies, because I had already addressed the point about "reliable sources" amply and on multiple occasions. So I will not repeat them again. Go read them yourself before you reply again, because you have so far failed to respond to me with anything relevant and rational. Evidently, you only want to engage in personal attacks against me without ever paying attention to the progress of discussion. You're really pathetic. That's why I have reported you for your antagonistic behavior.2604:6000:D786:6C00:FC0B:14FC:18B9:6346 (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@2604:6000:D786:6C00:FC0B:14FC:18B9:6346: The infobox is asking for his nationality. Nationality refers to one's relationship between himself/herself and a political state. There are NO sources that I know of that state that he ever lived in China. Your logic is referring to his ethnicity, which is not what we're looking for. CrispyCream27talkuser page 03:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@crispycream27 My edits to include his Chinese name, with source link, each time had nothing to do with talk of "nationality". So stop giving irrelevant and disingenuous replies about "nationality" while dodging the real issue. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, don't reply to pretend that you have anything useful to say.2604:6000:D786:6C00:BC3D:8133:D0E8:1E7E (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
We know he's Han Chinese without that video. (we have other sources to confirm) We know that he was born a Canadian citizen, and as of Sep 2018 (if not earlier) was also American, with no evidence he forwent Canadian citizenship. There's zero evidence that he has Chinese citizenship. So it is proper without evidence to prove otherwise as a Canadian American. And to that reason, it is improper to also force including of his name translated to Chinese, particularly taken from a random video. He may have a given Chinese name given his parents, but without it, we should not presume he has one. --Masem (t) 17:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This article will likely have to be long term semi-protected as Mobile editor has returned with a different Mobile IP & continues to edit-war on the nationality topic. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)