This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Changed statement. It's not true that Taiwanese were the first of three waves of Asian American immigration. I changed the term to ethnic Chinese immigration since all but the most extreme Taiwanese independence supporters do not deny that Taiwanese are ethnic Chinese.
--Roadrunner—Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 12 July 2003 (UTC).
Monterey Park
Actually, Monterey Park doesn't have that much of a Taiwanese-origin population anymore as it did during the 1970s and 1980s. It seems to me that most Taiwanese American-owned businesses that used to be here have decline or disappeared and the city is now predominantly Cantonese-speaking (instead of Mandarin). It's now mostly mainlanders and Chinese Vietnamese here. Most Taiwanese with money have moved out. I know, I've lived here much of my life. Unfortunately, the Census data lumps all ethnic Chinese as "Chinese" (rather than Taiwanese or Mainland Chinese) so there is no way to verify my claims.
What I can say is that the cities with large and growing Taiwanese populations include Irvine and Rowland Heights in California.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.70.98 (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2004 (UTC)
Most Taiwanese that have money moved back to Taiwan! Taiwan isn't the polluted place that KMT have made it out to be before! DPP have clean it up fairly good! Of course, more could be done to Taiwan!!
Iron_Jackal_TW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.96.138 (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Taiwanese-American beliefs about American politics
I believe this has to do with:
Immigration Policies for Taiwan.
United States support for governmental body of the Republic of China.
United States support of the Taiwan Relations Act.
Political groups of Taiwan.
I know that each political party treats the Taiwan issue in a different light, and of course it depends on the relationship with China at the time. There are also active political members and groups that live in the United States but travel back to participate in the Taiwan government, which would give political beliefs regarding American politics as well.
--Nomegustan—Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC).
I would like to raise a point that in normal terms it's accepted that a Taiwanese American has to hold some form of Green Card or Passport, which in the case of Ang Lee, I don't believe that's true. I may be wrong, but at present that is my knowledge. Perhaps I will wait and see if anyone can verify that before I alter it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.72.99 (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Ang Lee is NOT Taiwanese or Taiwanese-American! He is KMT Chinese or ethic Chinese! Most Taiwanese men would gladly see this GAY shit go back to his China!!
Iron_Jackal_TW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.96.138 (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean Ang Lee isn't Taiwanese? Ang Lee is from Taiwan, and people from Taiwan are called "Taiwanese"
an estimated 10,000 Taiwanese Americans traveled to Taiwan to vote in an election in which the margin of victory was 30,000, and both groups campaigned extensively in the United States and held campaign rallies on Taiwan to welcome their voters.
The following sentence in the lead is disputed: "Whether Taiwanese Americans also count as Chinese Americans is a controversial political issue."
Are there specific examples of Taiwanese Americans explictly claiming not to be Chinese Americans? The Chinese sense of the term "Chinese American" 美籍華人 applies to Taiwanese Americans as the term for (culturally) "Chinese" 華人 universally and undisputably applies to Taiwanese. --Jiang 00:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Are there specific examples of Taiwanese Americans explictly claiming TO BE Chinese Americans? Whether it is "Chinese American" or 美籍華人 (which are essentially the same), due to the political status of Taiwan and Taiwan-China relations. This sentence is necessary to keep NPOV in effect on wikipedia. This is not PA, but how can a Chinese person represent the voice of Taiwanese and universal value as a whole?--
Are there specific examples of Taiwanese Americans explictly claiming not to be Chinese Americans? Yes, I know many Taiwanese Americans who claim not to be Chinese Americans. Readin (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not a Chinese conducted survey. Please cite how "Whether Taiwanese Americans also count as Chinese Americans is a controversial political issue." Can you verify this? Where is the controversy? --Jiang 04:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand your POV. But no POV pushing please.--
In the United States census, at least, Taiwanese Americans are considered as part of Chinese Americans and there is no seperate grouping for Taiwanese. And certain prominent Taiwanese, such as Iris Chang, did explicitly consider themselves as Chinese, and named them as so in her book, The Chinese in America. So there's certainly at least some segnment of the populartion who describe themselves as Chinese Americans. --Yuje 12:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that Iris Chang's parents were mainlanders, and surely they would have had enough influence on her decision that she is Chinese instead of just Taiwanese. Today, more than 70% of the population in Taiwan itself believes they are Taiwanese, and this survey was conducted by the KMT themselves. Tiffany 13:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is "Chinese" can mean different things, one is ethnic Chinese/Han Chinese, another is citizen of China, and then there's the problem of the definition of "China" itself. LDHan 12:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The discussion is moving off topic. The sentence "whether Taiwanese Americans also count as Chinese Americans is a controversial political issue" serves as a disclaimer and should remain in the article. Please reframe from considering every edit to be politically driven. =D JumpingcheeseContact 05:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with motive of the editor. The statement, as it stands alone, is not verified. I could add "Whether Chinese Americans can be considered true Americans is a controversial political issue" and say the same about verifiability. --Jiang 06:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The Taiwanese and Chinese issue is obviously a controversial issue and a disclaimer is needed to prevent offending Wikipedian on either side of the spectrum. =) JumpingcheeseContact 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it "obviously" a controversial issue? Can you link to websites explaning or demonstrating the controversy? I just don't see it.--Jiang 06:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The issue in Taiwanese identity politics is over whether Taiwanese are politically and ethnically Chinese (zhongguoren) or not politically Chinese and only ethnically Chinese (huaren). However, by default and definition, "Chinese American" implies only the latter and makes no implication over the former. "Chinese American" is an ethnic-cultural label, not a political one, unless we speak of being politically American. In Chinese newspapers in America, the terms "overseas Chinese" (huaqiao) or "ethnic Chinese" (huaren) are used to refer to Chinese Americans, inclusive of Overseas Chinese. Ethnic Chinese in America from Singapore still check the "Chinese" label on the US Census form, since there is no "Singaporean" race or ethnicity. (see also Talk:List of Chinese Americans#Ethnicity lists discussion)--Jiang 07:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure? Although I’m not from Singapore, the last thing I would call myself is Chinese (which is thousands of miles away). Malaysian would be a much more appropriate choice. Another thing, the article is not going by "ethnic-cultural" or ethnic groups, but nationalities. If Chinese is the ethnic group, then Han Chinese is the only existing label. =D JumpingcheeseContact 02:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
"Chinese American" is not a nationality. It is used to describe a racial/ethnic group of Americans, ie those with origins/ancestry in China. If you would like more input, post something at Wikipedia:WikiProject China--Jiang 05:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether Chinese American is a nationality or not is irrevelant. People can argue either way. By saying it with a statement of fact is an example of POV pushing. Thank you.--
How about modifying "Whether Taiwanese Americans also count as Chinese Americans is a controversial political issue." to something like:
Whether Taiwanese Americans also count as Chinese Americans is a controversial political issue for some Taiwanese Americans. Although "Chinese Americans" is used by most, including the US Census, to mean "ethnic Chinese" ie Han Chinese, some Taiwanese Americans use the term "Chinese Americans" to mean Americans from or of descent from people from China. Therefore they do not include Taiwanese Americans as Chinese Americans because they do not include Taiwan as part of China. LDHan 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds a little too superfluous and has a slight issue of POV. I still believe that the current disclaimer is adequate. =D JumpingcheeseContact 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
From what I've heard and read, the government of Taiwan considers Taiwan to be "the real China". From that perspective, how could Taiwanese Americans NOT be Chinese Americans? Gringo300 03:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
But many people from Taiwan or whose ancestors are from Taiwan don't agree with the government's perspective. Readin (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether Taiwanese Americans count as Chinese Americans is not a controversial issue. As I mentioned before, the US census includes Taiwanese as part of the Chinese American group. So does the government of Taiwan. For example:
Read the statement by the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission: "I have consistently sought to draw on the resources of the government and the private sector, to strengthen services aimed at overseas Chinese (including Taiwanese), assist in the resolution of overseas development problems, enhance the promotion of Chinese and Taiwanese cultures, encourage overseas people to put down roots and join their local mainstream society, and use various channels of communication to win the hearts of our overseas compatriots." (emphasis added)[1]
Here's their section on Overseas Chinese: [2] Download their analysis of the number of ethnic Chinese in the USA, and you'll see it explicitly includes Taiwanese in the paper (along with mainlanders and Hong Kongers.
For an "Overseas Compatriate Identity Certificate", one needs documents showing proof that the applicant is "ethnic Chinese". [3]
To say that it's a controversial issue now requires the burden of proof from those stating it. Otherwise, I propose changing the sentence to:
Whether Taiwanese Americans count as Chinese Americans is not a controversial issue; both the United States and Taiwanese government statistics for ethnic Chinese in the United States include Taiwanese. [place cites here]
I disagree. Since the Taiwanese independence movement started, labeling people in Taiwan as Chinese has become a controversial issue, since it appears to be endorsing a particular political view. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I want you to justify your statement. I've proved that the governments of both the US and Taiwan (ie both the Taiwanese and American parts of Taiwanese American) count them as Chinese Americans. That both governments involved label them as Chinese is a fact, not a POV. If you want to say otherwise or to say it's a controversy, provide a verifiable source. --Yuje 11:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason we are having this discussion should be enough reason on why it's a controversial and political issue. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 10:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I repeat, I want you to show the controversy in a verifiable manner, not as a vague and nebulous claim. From what you claim, any anonymous wikipedian can turn any issue controversial merely by disagreeing with it. I'm not buying that. Source, please. --Yuje 11:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is like the whole Ireland and UK situation...I highly doubt I need sources for that. I'm not buying your act of playing dumb regarding the whole controversy. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 01:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No. If it's as obvious as you claim, then you should have absolutely no problem finding such a source. On the other hand, I have provided sources saying the exact opposite of what you are advocating, that the government which controls Taiwan, considers Taiwanese abroad to also be ethnic Chinese (as reflected in the very name of the government agency, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission), that that the US government census, of which Taiwanese Americans are also citizens of, also classifies them as a subgroup of ethnic Chinese. Both of these are simple statements of fact, which you deleted, and yet when I asked for a cite, you seem to be unable to provide one. How do you want to explain yourself?
I'm not playing dumb regarding any controversy. Political differences don't entail ethnic ones, and as others have pointed out above and elsewhere, even pro-independence groups in Taiwan do not regard reject ethnic Chinese identity or regard it to be controversial. The country of Singapore was never part of China, yet it's also not controversial that 70% of its people are ethnic Chinese. Now, back to you. You claim controversy? I call BS and want to see a source. Justify your statement. --Yuje 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Taiwanese independence supporters consider themselves overseas Chinese (華人). Chinese Americans are also overseas Chinese. I don't see controversy here. It is unfortunate that the English language lacks the specificity to distinguish between the two brands of Chinese (political vs. cultural/overseas).--Jiang 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for comparison's sake, the original version of the page said, "Generally, people from Taiwan do not mind being considered either or both Taiwanese American and Chinese American. However, political extremists exists and those people will have a strong preference for some permutation of Chinese / Taiwanese American.". Certified Gangsta/Bonafide Hustler changed it to the current statement, without a cite. He has never provided it, and refused to provide it even up till now. He changed it and the rest were 27 reverts. How is this concensus building? You've merely been reverting, making allegations against others, and ignoring legitimate sources given by other people. --Yuje 06:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
So you're endorsing the previous version? Stating that it's a controversial issue should not be a problem. Here is an entire page on the political controversy...since you demand it so:
Please don't try to source a wiki with another wiki article. That provides no sources either. If I were to ask you there, you'd probably point me right back to this article. No circular arguments, please. I've provided a government census's position on its own citizens. A government is a notable entity, and the source is verifiable. Justify your deletions of it, instead of leading around in POV circles. Provide an actual verifiable and notable source. --Yuje 00:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You said, "please settle the issue on the talk page". Well, I've provided it. The government ruling Taiwan counts Taiwanese Americans as a subgroup of Chinese Americans. It's a fact. I've provided the link verifying it. What exactly is "controversial" about this? You're saying the government's position should be completely ignored? The government of the US also counts Taiwanese Americans as a subgroup of Chinese Americans. Also a fact. Also verified. And you? --Yuje 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a fair amount of strategic ambiguity is called for to maintain peace on this page. As long as no one is disputing the existence of this article, why don't we leave out all references to government sources in the first paragraph? I mean. it is not up to any government to decide on the self-identification (or lack thereof) of any group or subgroup of Americans.--Niohe 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If so, then the statement about it being controversy should also be taken out from the first paragraph, as well, especially since it isn't sourced. I could live with that. However, someone wants to assert an issue is controversial, then the issue should be presented from multiple views, including the views of the governments involved. --Yuje 01:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the controversy is taking place in front of us isn't it? We can have one sentence stating that the subject is under controversy, followed by a sentence briefly describing the policies of the US, ROC and PRC governments. Sources can be left in the main body of the article itself.--Niohe 01:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I've been trying to do. I haven't touched the controversy sentence, only requested a cite, and followed it up with a sentence briefly describing ROC and US policy. Two users have repeatedly been deleting the sentence describing US and ROC policy. --Yuje 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yuje, This is all getting off topic and obfuscated. I do not believe the line "Both the governments of Taiwan and the United States regard Taiwanese Americans as a subgroup of Chinese Americans" adds anything to the article, not do I believe it is correct. We are playing word games with the word 'Chinese'. The cited references are not credible for this argument. The OCAC citation in Chinese mentions "海外僑胞" and do NOT mention Chinese and Taiwanese separately. The english translation has "overseas Chinese (including Taiwanese)" which is not in the source document. SO I do not think either of these citations are valid in this sense. The census lists chinese and taiwanese as subgroups of chinese. However, it specifically states "except Taiwanese", which I believe that the census considers chinese a racial subgroup of asian, but as a subgroup of chinese , taiwanese are not considered chinese. So the census bureau citation actually support saying that the govt does not consider then the same. I think we should drop all of this before it becomes an edit war as it does not add any thing to the article. I could cite the same census link and say "The US govt considers Taiwanese americans as a separate group from Chinese americans". But that would not add anything to the article either. I think both lines should be removed and let the article stand on references in the content. Wenzi 03:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Wenzi, take a look at this link, which is a analysis of ethnic Chinese (華人) in the USA. In the section on immigrants, it includes not just those from the Chinese mainland, but also Hong Kong and Taiwan. Now, at the census link: It shows Chinese as a subgroup of Asian, and Taiwanese as a subgroup of Chinese. I was concerned about the state of the article because certain users were trying to politicize the issue by inserting their own POVs. For example, this edit, by Jumping Cheese, where he kept on trying to remove the Chinese American categories by labeling them as "controversial", even though she refers to herself as a Chinese American and not a Taiwanese American. Another is David Wu, who self-identifies as Chinese American. However, Gangster here repeatedly insisted on removing that and calling him only a Taiwanese American. --Yuje 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Dude, thanks for digging up my old edits from over half an year ago (kind of scary) and using it as an ad hominem argument. I eventually added the source to the Chao page that Jiang found in which Chao explicitly states that she's "Chinese American" so the label could be justified. See the extensive discussion I had regarding Chao: Talk:Elaine Chao#Taiwanese?. You (with a pointy finger) are "trying to politicize the issue" by making a clear stance on the identity of people from Taiwan/ROC. I don't understand what is soooo offensive about stating an issue is controversial?!? JumpingcheeseCont@ct 07:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
And what is soooo controversial about asking you to provide a source? Because that's exactly what you labeled my edit in which I asked for a cite. Which you still have not provided. --Yuje 07:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh...and thanks for recruiting Jiang to participate in the discussion. Nothing wrong with that (or is there, I think I remember a policy against that), but recruit users from both side of the debate, not only your side. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 07:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I knew you would keep trying reverting until the threat of breaking the 3RR would finally bring you to talk. So why exactly are you still dancing around the issue of you not providing a cite to justify your claims? And why are you deleting the government stance on the issue?--Yuje 07:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You assume a lot of bad faith. You were the one that started making controversial edits before a consensus was formed. [4] The problem with providing a source is the same with finding a source for proving abortion or the Iraq War are controversial issues. You have people disagreeing, but no source explicitly stating "this is a controversial topic". JumpingcheeseCont@ct 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In contrast, your statement, "I highly doubt I need sources for that. I'm not buying your act of playing dumb regarding the whole controversy" is such a magnaminous act of good faith, I'm sure. Go look at
Criticism of George W. Bush or any similar articles. Almost every assertion in those articles is appropriately cited, and yet you can't find a single one. Please stop dancing around the issue and provide a source that says what you're saying, or else you're simplying spouting original research. --Yuje
01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh...it's not that hard for any Wikipedian to read the string above and see that you made all the personal attacks and bad faith accusations. My "I'm not buying your act of playing dumb regarding the whole controversy" was a direct response to you saying "I'm not buying that." Since you seem to enjoy analyzing other users edits instead of discussing the topic on hand, how about you analyzing your own edits to determine if you have a bias. And for the sources in the controversial article, please find a source in any of the pages you have mentioned that (or in abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment) that states that the subject is controversial. And as a final nail in the coffin (do I use too many figures of speech?) I found a random course description that says "The Taiwan issue is the most dangerous issue in Sino-US relations".[5] I know that's not the best source (and not suitable for the article), it gives a picture that people (gasp!) consider the Taiwan issue to be controversial. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Another example of gang patrolling by Chinese editor against NPOV editors. Do you know how many people in the general public rely on wikipedia for information?? We need to educate westerners that Taiwanese and Chinese are totally different. Of course, Chinese will argue differently, that's why it's controversial.--
And here, Certified.Gangsta reveals his bias, facts be damned. Of course, he won't provide a source, and he ignores the sources that say the opposite, but when has that ever stopped him? Just look at this edit [6] of his. Iris Chang explicitly named Taiwanese Americans as Chinese Americans in her book, The Chinese in America, and explicitly calls herself a Chinese American. So does Wen Ho Lee, who has said that his Chinese ethnicity was a source of bias that led to him being scapegoated. Or look at Jerry Yang. He's a member of the Committe of 100, a Chinese American organization. Do a Google search on him. He's named as a Chinese American by prominant magazines like Businessweek and Asianweek. Or this edit on Elaine Chao. Mrs. Chao says, and I quote, "Well, as a Chinese American, as an American of Chinese descent, I have, perhaps, a special view about the competitiveness in a situation..." Apparently, he thinks his views on identity are stronger that those of the named subjects themselves.--Yuje 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, please stop editing the page until a consensus is formed. Edit wars are hardly any fun. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 09:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd certainly like that, which is why I'm here. I hope Certified.Gansta does the same, as well. Unlikely though. A quick glance into the page history shows he's had 20+ reverts. In other words, his reverts outnumber his talk page comments, not a good sign for someone who repeatedly reverts with quotes like "see the talk page, dude". By the way, Jumping_cheese, any closer to coming up with the asked-for sources yet?--Yuje 09:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
See my reply above. It'll be a good idea to revert to the version that didn't spark all this discussion...then make the edit when we finally agree or find something better to do. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so let's discuss, then. Why do you disagree with the link I posted? Do you disagree with the link I posted, and why, and what do you propose to replace it with, if anything? --Yuje 00:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a few things to say. [1] The links Yuje are not conclusive. They talk about "華人" ( ethnic Chinese ) , which leads me to [2] I think we are still going around the word 'Chinese'. We can say "Chinese American " 美籍華人" , which is an american of chinese ethnic decent, or "Chinese American" 美籍中國人" which is an american of chinese national decent. The edit do not make a distinction [3] S'poreans often call themselves "華人" ( ethnic Chinese ) , but they rarely call themselves Chinese Americans in the US. ( I have never heard it anyway ) [4] I recruited someone who I thought would be somewhat neutral. My apologies, I didn't know there was a policy against that. [5] Talk is good, let's go back to the version before this started and reach consensus here Wenzi 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Which part of the US are you from? I'm from San Francisco, which contains a very large number of ethnic Chinese from the Southeast Asian countries, like Vietnam, and a lot of them consider themselves both Chinese and Vietnamese, or as Chinese Americans. I gave Singapore as an example of "華人" ( ethnic Chinese ), but I'm not aware of a large Singaporean population in the USA and I've never heard the term "Singaporean American" before, probably because there aren't a lot. The Taiwan political issue seems to revolve around whether or not Taiwanese are part of China (中國人), but that has nothing to do with Chinese Americans, since they are American citizens and thus they are all ethnic Chinese (華人) but not citezens of China (中國人).--Yuje 00:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Which type of "ethnic Chinese"? I think the problem here is a difference in terminology. For example, all the links provided are example of overseas Chinese...not of nationality. If based on nationality (as with "hyphened Americans" ie. "Irish-American") as this article does, then the ethnicity of Taiwanese Americans is not a factor. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 01:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Since all these "hyphened Americans" are based on self-identification, it is where/if/what type of chinese they feel they are. So if we stated something like "Some taiwanese Americans feel they are both Taiwanese Americans and overseas Chinese while others identify themselves as taiwanese american only" Wenzi 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Something like that. Since the page is based on nationality...the whole issue of Taiwan being considered its own country or as part of greater PRC comes into play. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Scots-Irish American) and only like five are based on ethnicity. If this article was intended to be based upon ethnicity, then it would be more properly titled as something like "Han Chinese-American"...which doesn't make any sense. JumpingcheeseCont@ct
05:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Since most Taiwanese consider Chinese to be the enemy, I don't see why Taiwanese would ever consider themselves Chinese, except for some Civil War veteran.--
?!? Anyways...the issue has not settled yet, so why did you revert back to the version that sparked all this arguing? JumpingcheeseCont@ct 05:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read
Chinese state
, as I see several users have tried to explain already.
Because it is a debate premised on a misunderstanding, and one in which one side fails to produce any reliable sources, it is not a debate to which Wikipedia defers: Wikipedais is premised on
WP:NOR
.
Let me spell it out for you: whether Taiwan is considered part of the "PRC" or not is completely irrelevant. Taiwan is a majority ethnically Chinese country/state/province/island/whatever you want to call it. That is enough. This debate keeps on repeating itself, due to a misunderstanding about the concepts of Chinese ethnicity versus Chinese nationality.
Until there are some verifiable, reliable sources being quoted that are not original research, the old version stays.
Specifically, if you are saying somehow that the Taiwanese are not ethnic Chinese (NOT the same concept as Chinese national), you will need a cite for that. --Sumple (Talk) 08:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The "old" version was this one.[7] And all the sources are quoted out of context...they refer to oversea Chinese...not to Taiwanese American. I am not saying no Taiwanese Americans have ethnic Chinese heritage (obviously), but that that the statement "Both the governments of Taiwan and the United States regard Taiwanese Americans as a subgroup of Chinese Americans" is a highly politically charged statement. If the page clearly states the issue and circumstance, then it would be acceptable. Spend your time creating a section regarding what Chinese American is defined by governments, not matter-of-factly stating that Taiwanese American is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chinese American. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You fail to appreciate my point. All three sources clearly list "Taiwanese" as a subgroup of "Chinese". I think we can all agree that these are verifiable, reliable sources. If you dispute this, you will need to raise contrasting verifiable sources. I see nothing of the sort. As I said, a discussion where one side relies on original research or personal opinion is not a debate to which Wikipedia defers.
This is such a discussion, unless and until some verifiable and reliable sources are raised to dispute the inserted sources. Specifically, you will need to show some sources which show that the Taiwanese and American governments list Taiwanese as being outside the Chinese ethnicity for this to become a legitimate content debate. --Sumple (Talk) 08:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok...but I read the sources. They refer to oversea Chinese, not to the national identity of Americans from Taiwan. There is legitimate dispute regarding the sources, since they're being cited out of context. For example, for the US gov source, it states via a table:
012 Asian alone
013 Asian Indian alone
014 Bangladeshi alone
015 Cambodian alone
016 Chinese alone
017 Chinese, except Taiwanese, alone
018 Taiwanese alone
019 Filipino alone
031 Asian alone or in combination with one or more other races
032 Asian Indian alone or in any combination
033 Bangladeshi alone or in any combination
034 Cambodian alone or in any combination
035 Chinese alone or in any combination
036 Chinese, except Taiwanese, alone or in any combination
037 Taiwanese alone or in any combination
038 Filipino alone or in any combination
How does this infer that Taiwanese American is Chinese American? It's under a subgroup of Chinese, but there's also a category for "Taiwanese alone". In the second source:
“
I have consistently sought to draw on the resources of the government and the private sector, to strengthen services aimed at overseas Chinese (including Taiwanese), assist in the resolution of overseas development problems, enhance the promotion of Chinese and Taiwanese cultures, encourage overseas people to put down roots and join their local mainstream society, and use various channels of communication to win the hearts of our overseas compatriots.
”
And the third source is a table title "The Ranking of Overseas Chinese". These sources do no support the statement "Both the governments of Taiwan and the United States regard Taiwanese Americans as a subgroup of Chinese Americans" that is currently in the page. In fact, they seem to point in the opposite direction...that Taiwanese Americans are in fact categorized their own group. Sure, the ROC source considers Taiwanese American to be "oversea Chinese", but that's "oversea Chinese", not Chinese American. I'm all for the sources if the statement they are cited for is actually based upon the info in the sources. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 06:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You said "They refer to oversea Chinese, not to the national identity of Americans from Taiwan". That's precisely not the point that several other editors have been trying to make: "Chinese" as in "overseas Chinese" or "Chinese American" refer to the Chinese ethnicity, not the Chinese nationality. There is nothing in this article, the Overseas Chinese article, or any of these sources, to suggest that the word "Chinese" is being used in the nationality sense rather than the ethnicity sense. An "overseas Chinese" living in "America" is a "Chinese American". That is clear from the definition of "Chinese American".
On a separate point... You said "Taiwanese alone" is being listed separately. I don't see it - I only see it being listed as a subcategory under Chinese (two subcategories: "Chinese, except Taiwanese, alone", and "Taiwanese alone"). Am I looking in the wrong place? --Sumple (Talk) 10:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the "Taiwanese alone" category, which is under the "Chinese alone" category. I'm confused on how a person can be "Taiwanese alone" and "Chinese alone" at the same time...I think the table is trying to avoid the whole identity issue to please both sides. Ethnic groupsAnyways, this article is referring to nationality, not to ethnicity. I believe I've established that somewhere above, so it would not make sense to include ethnicity in the page. If the page does, then it has to specify which Chinese ethnicity...and that there are a whole mess of ethnicities to pick from. For example, does "Chinese ethnicity" mean Han-Chinese or the Hani ethnicity. As you can see in the map, Taiwan consists of mostly Han and Malay-Polynesian Indonesian ethnic groups. If the page was based on ethnicity, then Taiwanese-American will be considered to be something like Han/Indonesian-Americans. See the nice little table below to see all the "Chinese ethnicities". JumpingcheeseCont@ct 21:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this is based on "nationality" alone. Being Chinese can be defined as being a member of the
Chinese nation (an invented concept including all these separate ethnic groups). Why cant a person can be "American alone" and "Taiwanese alone" at the same time? One is implied to be a subgroup of the other: all Taiwanese are Chinese; not all Chinese are Taiwanese... --Jiang
20:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe I've heard Zhonghua minzu before...in reference to the PRC. But how would a invented concept fit into the page? I have no opposition to including ethnicity into the article, but simply defining "Taiwanese American" as "Chinese American" seems suspiciously like a political move. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Zhonghua minzu has been part of the indocrination of Taiwanese schoolchildren since the KMT takeover. I presume it has since been removed in favor of emphasis on Taiwan-related topics, but is not being refuted or widely disputed.--Jiang 06:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
This debate has got a life of its own, wow! Anyway, I think it is an exercise in futility to define what Chinese-American or Taiwanese-American mean on the basis of what these terms are in Chinese. Likewise, to accuse Wen Ho Lee or Iris Chang of false consciousness because they identified themselves as Chinese-Americans is taking us nowhere either.
It is notoriously difficult to pinpoint exactly where the line goes between ethnicity and nationality. If you immigrated from
Austrian-American. The difference? Hundred and fifty years of history and changing perceptions on what constitutes German origin. Chinese identity is also subject to change and we cannot decide here what does or does not constitute Taiwanese American or Chinese American identity. --Niohe
14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Any possible solution or compromise? JumpingcheeseCont@ct 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Chinese Americans? (Part 2)
It's a common misconception in north american society to consider Taiwanese as ethnic Chinese. Race, in this case, is a very vague concept and need biological proof. Not even Han Chinese from North and South have the same DNA. If you're making the culture argument, Taiwan has it's own distinct culture (sometimes more similar to Japanese than Chinese) until forced assimilation by the Nationalist.--
Poster was made in the USA by a third party... keep in mind, Machi has openly considered themselves Taiwanese, even in their music, and so has Kaila Yu. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
How does this disprove Certified.Gangsta other than offer up a distraction? How do these people have anything to do with the fact that there are indeed many people from Taiwan that immigrated to the USA and consider themselves Taiwanese American? After carefully going over the sources of this list, half aren't even talking about what they consider themselves despite their ethnicity (eg. many Americans have British ancestors). Many have attended events which include other people from Taiwan that have indeed spoken at Taiwanese events, such as David Ho, whom has spoken alongside Jerry Yang in the C100, yet has also spoken for NATMA Taiwan which happens to advocate WHO entry for Taiwan! Kaila Yu is featured in a poster that was made by a third party (she once spoken out against the Chinese government in an interview, and on her official Xanga page she is in various Taiwanese groups, but none Chinese). The same poster even features the famous band, Machi, whom happen to consider themselves very Taiwanese even in their music.
So far there is only Jerry Yang, Elaine Chao, Iris Chang, Eric Liu, whom have directly referred to themselves as Chinese American. This is ignoring the whole fact that this does NOT disprove any statements the complexity of the situation is that there are indeed many Chinese immigrants in Taiwan whom later immigrated to the USA. Others may have pressure via business interests (Aborigine Singer A-mei calling herself Chinese in order to appease her Chinese fans while in China under threat of being banned) Therefore it is possible to have Chinese ethnicity and consider oneself Taiwanese. In fact there are immigrants from Africa in Taiwan whom consider themselves Taiwanese, speak Hakka, Mandarin, and so forth. By leaving it to us, we get chaos. For instance, Michelle Krusiec calls herself Taiwanese in her own blog, yet was listed as Chinese American until I changed it. Was it because she has previously attended events labeled Chinese American? Kaila Yu has done the same on her Xanga blog. So who are we to decide what ethnicity these people are based on disparate associations? Since Wikipedia is to maintain a NPOV I think the best thing to do is to have a ranking priority in which we decide what to label them. Since this situation is complex, I'm certain we've established that its really up to the person themselves to decide who they are. So either we contact the person stated and alert them that a potentially hairy topic is being put up, or we refer first to personal statements (I am Chinese/I am Taiwanese). Just attending an event labeled this or that doesn't count because that is an ethnicity issue, and I've already proven that just because someone attends Chinese events, they don't necessarily identify themselves as such. We have to show that the person made the choice in labeling themselves. The second thing we can fall back on is their citizenship, whether dual or not. When it comes to speculation the best thing to do is not say either. We must maintain NPOV. On the other hand, saying American will be just as fine. Finally as for Gangsta's point, it makes sense. The issue exists. Hiding it will do not good, as this is Wikipedia and everything important should be covered.--24.193.80.232 (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Kudos for the obviously time consuming research. So those people consider themselves to be Chinese American even though they immigrated to America from Taiwan. However, that becomes an issue of politics again, since the supporters of the pan-blue collation usually consider themselves to be Chinese, whereas the people in the recent Taiwanese independence movement and pan-green collation usually consider themselves to be Taiwanese. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 06:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that these people are supporters of either political leaning? Or is that just speculation on your part?--Yuje 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not so much speculation, but common sense. Kuomintang, People First Party, and New Party are part of the pan-blue coalition, which supports a Chinese identity instead of a separate Taiwanese identity. On the other hand, Democratic Progressive Party and Taiwan Solidarity Union are part of the pan-green coalition, which supports a Taiwanese identity. So...it would make sense for people in the party to also support their party's platform. Oh...and please voice your opinion at the compromise section (below) so that we can come to an agreement regarding editing Wikipedia. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No, that sounds exactly like speculation from you. For example, Eric Liu wrote an entire book about how he grew up as an American and only rexplored his Chinese identity later in life. It doesn't sound like he was very interested in politics on Taiwan. If you want to assert that these named people support certain political leanings, I want a source, (which you seem adverse to providing), since neither have you provided a source about your assertions for the Democratic Progressive party or the Taiwan Solidarity Union, either. Using your flimsy standards of evidence, I could also make "obvious" statements that people who hate America, such as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Huissein, must "obviously" support the Democratic Party, since it's "common sense" that the Democrats hate America, right? No, if you want to claim these people come from certain political leanings, prove it. I'm frankly tired of OR assertions.
As for the proposal below, I was busy and didn't have time to return online till now. I'll comment on it now. --Yuje 05:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well put Jumping Cheese. This is a case of enforcing NPOV policy.--
Please verify that last sentence. I've never seen pro-Green people deny being Chinese. The politically correct term for overseas Chinese is now 華人, not 海外的中國人, which used to appear in textbooks. Both still mean "Chinese" in English. --Jiang 07:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
To tell you the truth...I'm illiterate in Mandarin, so I don't really know the meaning of 華人 or 海外的中國人. I am fluent in Mandarin, but that's about it. No Chinese school for me (I did, but for like half an year...I can't even write by name in Mandarin anymore) =( JumpingcheeseCont@ct 08:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Try sounding out the pinyin: politically correct term for overseas Chinese is now hua ren, not hai wai de zhongguo ren. My old Chinese school book (issued by the ROC ministry of education from the KMT days) from when I was in first grade had dialogues reading "wo men shi zhong guo ren. wo men shi hai wai the zhong guo ren." "We are (politically) Chinese people. We are overseas (politically) Chinese people." The current ministry of education under the DPP had all references to zhongguo ren changed to huaren.--Jiang 20:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well...I was born in LA, so I know nothing about how the education system has changed in ROC/Taiwan. I'm still having trouble understanding the meaning of the Mandarin characters. Sorry about that. ;) JumpingcheeseCont@ct 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Chinese school textbooks I encountered attending evening Chinese school in America...but those textbooks came from Taiwan. Understanding this whole dispute we have here is about realizing that the Chinese-English terms for "Chinese" have a 2 on 1 matching. One of the terms for "Chinese" implies no nationality and is applied universally by anyone of Chinese ethnicity. This is the same uncontroversial term used for "Chinese" in "Chinese American".--Jiang 06:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I doubt any truly patriotic Taiwanese will consider themselves to be 華人, it's degrading Taiwan into places such as Hong Kong, which isn't even a country. Indirectly implying Taiwan is part of China.--
Thank you Jumping Cheese. Another note is that if say I, who is part Taiwanese, become a local celeb. Some ignorant site might list me as a Chinese American (which will reveal in a google search) although that would be against my self-identification not to mention very insulting.--Certified.Gangsta 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You said "I doubt any truly patriotic Taiwanese will consider themselves to be 華人, it's degrading Taiwan into places such as Hong Kong, which isn't even a country. Indirectly implying Taiwan is part of China"
Firstly, where is your evidence for your doubts about "patriotic" Taiwanese? Do you speak for the Taiwanese people? If you read patriotism, you will note that your statement presupposes that the Taiwanese in being patriotic must respect Taiwan, rather than China, which itself is "a controversial issue", as you persist in pointing out in all the wrong contexts.
Secondly, your statement that it is "degrading" is backed up by nothing but your personal opinion.
You don't even live in Taiwan. Even if you were, who are you to speak for the 23 million people living in Taiwan? Your statement goes directly against all the tonnes of evidence presented to you on this and other pages over months and months. Among the people you have just labelled as not being "truly patriotic", are pretty much the majority of the Democratic Progressive Party: see Talk:Overseas Chinese for all the evidence which were presented to you but you repeatedly refused to read, discuss, or even challenge.
Thirdly, what is degrading about Hong Kong? I feel compelled to warn you that your comment was gratuitously disparaging to the people of Hong Kong, and I warn you to desist from such discriminatory behaviour.
Finally, it matters not what you think you are. You can think you are a three-legged green-skinned alien, but that does not make the people of Taiwan three-legged green-skinned aliens. --Sumple (Talk) 10:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone give me an example where taiwanese culture is "more similar" to japanese culture than chinese culture, like "certified gangsta" said? And please do not count watching j-drama/anime, speaking a few engrish phrases, and also exclude older generations who had lived as colonial subjects, thanks. Blueshirts 20:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Japan definitely has an influence on ROC/Taiwan (especially during the period of occupation), but hardly more than the influence from China after the Nationalists poured into Taiwan. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, but Chinese influence wasn't "poured" into Taiwan only after Nationalist arrival. Taiwanese people are a Chinese stock. Chinese language, religion, customs have been there for couple hundred years before the Japanese arrived, and they weren't able to wipe it out in fifty years. Blueshirts 05:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
This is POV. Korean and Japanese cultures were also influenced by Chinese culture. Nationalist illegally obtained Taiwan against UN article 77B of self-determination, persecuted Taiwanese elites and forced Taiwanese to assimilate into Chinese culture. These are all facts. Many Taiwanese committed suicide after Japan lost WWII. Taiwan was part of the Dutch Empire until Manchu invaded Taiwan, but even then it was self-rule. In the process, Taiwanese developed a unique identity. Somewhere between Japanese and Chinese.--
like your other posts, a bunch of nonsense. culture flowed into Korea and Japan (in the latter case, before the 16th century). people already cultured flowed across the Taiwan case (in most cases, after the 16th century). --Jiang 06:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You're not implying that there isn't any culture prior right? Cultures adapt things from all over, its fallacy to say Japanese
gangsta, I don't think you know anything about Taiwan, whether about its people or history. Are you Taiwanese or have you been to Taiwan at least? Blueshirts 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Since this discussion isn't really going anywhere, how about a compromise? My proposal:
Find better sources for the statement...not ones that sorta-kinda support the statement.
Move the info into the "Politics" section.
Edit the statement so that it is explicitly backed up by the source (ie.: not inferring what the source is hinting at).
If there are any opposition to the proposal (in whole or in part), please explain your position and your own proposal. Let's work together to finally settle the issue. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise, I propose that in the interim, and until better sources are found, the sentence be moved to a more appropriate section, and be amended to "In official contexts, Taiwanese Americans are often treated as a subgroup of Chinese Americans. An example is for statistical purposes in the United States (source 1). Overseas Taiwanese are also included as part of the overseas Chinese population within the mandate of the Overseas Compatriot Affairs Commission of the Republic of China (source 2), and for related statistical purposes (source 3)."
This more accurately describes the context and nature of the sources supplied, and avoids making a generalising inference, which, if I understand correctly, is Jumping Cheese's objection. --Sumple (Talk) 02:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I like Sumple's proposal. However, I still want a source listed for the assertion that Chinese identity for Taiwanese American is a controversial issue. --Yuje 05:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Great! I see no particular objection. It's much less biased and accurately supported by the sources. I wholeheartedly approve of Sumple's proposal. =) JumpingcheeseCont@ct 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Input for other Wikipedians involved in this discussion so that the changes can be made? JumpingcheeseCont@ct 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion died down for two months now and a compromise has not been reached. I thought of this discussion when I was looking at my parents' U.S. Passports and their country of origin is "Taiwan", that black and white. Not "China", "Republic of China", or even "Republic of China (Taiwan)", but "Taiwan". I think that goes against the statement that "both the governments of Taiwan and the United States regard Taiwanese Americans as a subgroup of Chinese Americans". Still waiting on a compromise to close this discussion. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 06:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I know of some Chinese-Americans whose parents passports list them as coming from Indonesia, Singapore, or Vietnam. I frankly don't know of anyone from Taiwan that doesn't think that Taiwanese-Americans are not "hua ren", and until about two years ago the agency that dealt Taiwanese-Americans was called the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission. (And hopefully Ma will change it back if he gets elected.)
The notion that Taiwanese-Americans are not "hua ren" or "mei guo hua yi" would frankly strike most people from Taiwan (even strong pan-green) as very odd. That's not to say that the idea shouldn't be mentioned if it is common among American-born Taiwanese.
Something that I've noted is that people in the United States tend to take much more extreme positions than people in Taiwan, and this is understandable. In Taiwan, Blue and Green have to work with each other. In Houston, they don't.
In SoCal, the Blue and Green still have to work together, or else we go at each other's throats. ;) My parents' immigration papers also state the country of origin as "Taiwan". I'm not sure if they wrote that themselves, or the U.S. government consider Taiwan to be Taiwan. Anyways....what do you think about the compromise? JumpingcheeseCont@ct 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia. Whether or not Taiwanese Americans consider themselves Hua ren is irrelevant to the question of whether they consider themselves "Chinese Americans". Usage of Chinese is not the same as usage of English. I know quite a few Taiwanese Americans in America who use the term "Waiguoren" to refer to white and black Americans - does that mean they consider whites and blacks to be "foreigners" in America? Readin (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As a Taiwanese American living in Socal, I strongly believe that I am not Chinese, in fact, all of my firends deny that they are Chinese, it is only the Chinese that call us Chinese..Americans mistakes us for Chinese people sometimes but we explain that we are Taiwanese and they accept it. Why can't Chinese people? What is wrong with us not being Chinese? Ultimately, WE decide if we are considered Taiwanese or Chinese. Chinese identity for Taiwanese Americans is NOT an issue. Seriously, if someone came up to an American and asked "Are you British?" would the American say yes? That is the same with Taiwanese Americans. And for those who say that we "don't have a culture," we do have a culture. We speak Taî ôan oe, Hakka, and Mandarin. So what we speak Mandarin. Americans speak English... are we part of Britain? We have our own hybrid customs based on both China and Japanese and European culture: My mom watches dramas and sings KTV, me and my friends read manga (漫畫), we also write Traditional Chinese (though some people know Pehoeji) and (some Taiwanese) follow daoism. We play baseball...etc
There a good amount of info regarding Taiwanese Canadians, so I'm creating a new page and moving the info over. =D JumpingcheeseContact 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Protection
Please talk the lead paragraph definition through here and stop edit warring. It's not productive to keep reverting each other, 3RR or no. --Nlu (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Clarification please.
Under "Occupations and citizenship status", third paragraph states "... Although the United States requires immigrants to renounce their original citizenship, the government on Taiwan..." This doesn't seem to agree with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Dual_citizenship which states "Although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced to require the actual termination of original citizenship."
--ComingSoon—The preceding comment signed as by ComingSoon (talk • contribs) was actually added by 63.117.55.131 (talk • contribs) - [20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)]
Good catch. Can an admin please fix it? JumpingcheeseCont@ct 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Contradictory image?
Taiwanese American culture abounds in this busy and vibrant strip mall in the southeastern San Gabriel Valley of Los Angeles.
Maybe it's just me, but I find the caption of this image to be somewhat ironic considering that the shopping mall in question has the words "Hong Kong" on it. -
Loren
05:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm also puzzled by the pic. Is there a better one maybe? JumpingcheeseCont@ct 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Taiwanese Americans and Taiwanese Aborigines
Would Taiwanese Aborigines who moved to America and became American citizens be labelled as "Taiwanese Americans"? They are definitely NOT Chinese in the sense that is usually thought of. Doesn't that open up a whole other can of worms about whether Taiwanese Americans are Chinese Americans? Gringo300 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many different perspectives in Taiwan as well as China. 1. ROC ceased to exist after communist rebellion, therefore Taiwan is part of China. 2. 2 countries: ROC and PRC, Taiwanese are Chinese. 3. Both the Japanese and Chinese are invaders of Taiwan, therefore other than mainlanders, all Taiwanese are not Chinese.--
(Warning: unsourced comments that probably dont belong in the article) The aboriginials that I am remotely aware of seem to have adopted Han names and accepted themselves as Chinese. Keep in mind that textbooks (at least until recently) promoted Zhonghua minzu and aboriginals overwhelmingly support the Kuomintang. less so for Mongols or Tibetans, just as much (and perhaps even more) so for Manchus (who have largely assimilated).--Jiang 09:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Most Aborigine Taiwanese would prefer to be called as Indigenous Taiwanese! Indigenous Taiwanese do NOT overwhelmingly support Kuomintang! The leaders of Indigenous Taiwanese support Kuomintang to take bribe for themselves! Most of these people moved out of Taiwan the KMT way as soon as their pockets is filled!
Iron_Jackal_TW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.96.138 (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed Taiwanese culture statement
Took out the section about Taiwanese culture being well preserved which IMHO is subjective and wrong. The next sentence talks about strip malls and shopping centers, and those don't seem very Taiwanese to me.
Maybe putting a "citation needed" tag there would have been better? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed because it's subjective, and I personally think it is incorrect, and contradicts the next sentence. If someone thinks it is correct and citable, we can discuss it. Roadrunner 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I personally have no sources at hand to verify the information, but if the information can be sourced, would you object to it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This article shouldn't exist
It's about as relevant as Shanghainese American or Cantonese American or Fukienese American. --Naus 21:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. See the above discussions for a better understanding of the delicate nature of the subject. Jumpingcheese 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Taiwanese-American vs Chinese-American: Ethnicity vs Nationality
Hi all, I apologize if I might be opening another can of worms here or if this has been resolved. Recently I noticed that someone changed the Vanness Wu page, replacing "Taiwanese-American" with "Chinese-American" under nationality (in the Profile section). I'm wondering if this is misleading? He was born in the U.S. and his parents are apparently from Taiwan (as said in this source, although I don't know if it's lying due to bias: http://taiwanreview.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=743&CtNode=119), so wouldn't that make his nationality "Taiwanese-American"? Before anyone jumps on me, please note that I'm making a distinction between nationality and ethnicity. Regarding nationality, he would be American but since his parents are from Taiwan, that would make him a Taiwanese-American (whether Taiwan is a part of China is a different issue). Ethnically, in my opinion he would be "Chinese-American" (or just plain "Chinese", as "American" doesn't really count in terms of ethnicity). I'm not going to complicate the definition of ethnicity, it's just DNA, folks. But nationality is a more specific issue, and for the sake of specificity and in the light of my understanding that Taiwan's political status is in limbo, I'm inclined to change it back. I'm sorry this is such a long post for such a tedious subject, but I know there is a lot of controversy around these definitions and I don't want to start an edit war....What do you guys think? Foscoe 19:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Legally, he is a dual national according to
Nationality Law of the Republic of China, so both should be listed separately, ie. "United States" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)" but the extent to which the latter is exercised is suspect.--Jiang
21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in my previous post I meant to say someone replaced "Taiwanese-American" with "Chinese-American" (it's fixed now); Sorry if I confused anyone. Okay, HongQiGong actually went ahead and replaced "Chinese-American" with just "American". That alone probably works but I'm inclined to add "Taiwanese" next to it to clarify the dual nationality concept as you described, since after all he does hang around Taiwan a lot. Would we need to add ROC to it as well or is this implied? Thanks! Foscoe 02:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
For an individual I believe the policy is to use whatever the individual prefers. Readin (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hong Kong
For the purpose of US immigration law (and for that matter Taiwanese law), Hong Kong is considered a separate jurisdiction from mainland China.
Need to reword since I don't think that Macau is a separate immigration jurisdiction under US law.
The sentence is Most demographic research tends to clump immigrants from mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan as well as overseas Chinese who have immigrated from southeast Asia into the broadly-defined Chinese American category as both the governments of Taiwan and the United States regard Taiwanese Americans as a subgroup of Chinese Americans. There is no indication that the items on the list are intended to represent immigration jurisdictions under US law. As commonly understood they represent territories, or in the case of Taiwan a country. Perhaps it should say Most demographic research tends to clump immigrants from the US immigration jurisdictions of mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan as well as overseas Chinese who have immigrated from southeast Asia into the broadly-defined Chinese American category as both the governments of Taiwan and the United States regard Taiwanese Americans as a subgroup of Chinese Americans.
The Taiwanese also run several of North America's major Chinese-language newspapers, such as the World Journal, which is a conservative paper, and the International Daily News, a liberal paper. However, these influential and highly-circulated newspapers are not geared solely to the Taiwanese, but rather serve the Chinese-speaking immigrant readership.
What is the basis for calling the newspapers liberal and conservative? I read the wiki article on both and their biases were described more in terms of pro-KMT pro-China bias and pro-PRC pro-China bias. (Is there a pro-DPP pro-Taiwan paper out there?). Readin (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There are serveral. Taiwan Times and Taiwan Daily publish American editions and Pacific Times http://www.pacific-times.com/ is a US based weekly. Roadrunner (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Reverted template
Removing the overseas Chinese and Chinese-American templates is also NPOV. At this point the templates should stay because 1) the controversy is described 2) there is a matter of usability, in that having overseas Chinese and Chinese-American linked in makes the article more usable.
To settle this, we really either need to bring in people who are not part of the conflict, and if necessary take it to arbitration. I'll try to work with you on this, but removing Taiwanese-American from the templates is totally unacceptable to me (and I feel strongly about this since I am Taiwanese American).
The fact that you feel strongly about this is a source of concern. This is an encyclopedia where personal feelings should not get in the way of NPOV. I am also part Taiwanese yet I am definitely NOT Chinese. Your ethnicity and self-identification are irrelevant to the goal of this project. As for your suggestion for arbitration, the committee does not rule on content dispute.--
Pot, kettle, black, and you obviously have some personal feelings on this topic, and I'd argue that your edits are considerable less NPOV than mine. My ethnicity and self-identification are relevant since I can talk about how ethnicity and self-identification exists in the community being discussed, and my opinions on this are no worse (or better) than yours, so we need to figure out what to do. I'd like to find some group of people that are more neutral and we can present our cases to them.
We are going to hit into the three revert rule. In situations like this I find that a good approach is to bring in people that don't have strong feelings about an issue to add some perspective. Roadrunner (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In case any one is wondering on my arguments:
1) This issue has nothing to do with whether Taiwan is part of China. Sino-Vietnamese, Singapore Chinese, and Malaysian Chinese are considered both "overseas Chinese" and "Chinese-American"
2) The official definition of overseas Chinese and Chinese-American by both the governments of mainland China and Taiwan consider Taiwanese-Americans to be overseas Chinese and Chinese-American
3) Most Taiwanese-Americans consider themselves ethnic Chinese
4) The groups are related and overlapping enough so that one ought to be linking from one to another.
5) We should use consensus definitions when possible and mention when those definitions are controversial. Removing the templates gives people the impression that there is a consensus that Taiwanese-Americans aren't ethnic Chinese, when the consensus and mainstream viewpoint is in fact the opposite.
Finally, the encyclopedia *shouldn't* cater to one particular viewpoint, but my belief is that in this particular situation, Gangsta's classifications are more "idiosyncratic" than mine.
Regarding the statement that "Removing the templates gives people the impression that there is a consensus that Taiwanese-Americans aren't ethnic Chinese...", if the template is removed, the only people who will notice are those who expect it to be there. For the average reader, the lack of a category doesn't imply anything.
Anyway I've reverted the changes. If you revert, the reverts, which I think you are likely to do, I'll tag it with an "WP:UNDUE" since to remove the Chinese-American and overseas Chinese tag falls afoul of the policy against giving undue weight to uncommon view points. There are people that assert that Taiwanese-Americans are not Chinese-Americans, but they are too small in number to dominate the article. I'll also try to get unbiased third parts in here to resolve this dispute. If you can summarize the reasons why you think that the template shouldn't be changed, then please do so. Roadrunner (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
What is your source for your claim that the number of people who assert that Taiwanese Americans are no Chinese Americans is very small? Readin (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a very good question. Personal experience (which I admit is a very shaky ground for argument). I admit that this is not good enough for a wikipedia article, so I'm looking for a formal survey and citation. However, something that is to be considered is that the government of Taiwan classifies Taiwanese-Americans as Chinese-Americans [[8]]. Roadrunner (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I found a good source. [[9]] In particular there is this statement....
To identify oneself as a Chinese in sense of (3) or (4) is quite different from (1) or (2). The difference explains why some DPP politicians may regard themselves as hua ren but never as zhong guo ren, although both are translated into "Chinese." It also explains why Chen Shui-bian can defend his recognition of the ROC by saying that the ROC and the PRC are two distinct hua ren countries, just as the PRC and Singapore. But most importantly, it explains why being a Chinese (in the sense of hua ren) is not incompatible with supporting an independent Republic of Taiwan, for otherwise there will be contradiction in saying that one is a zhong guo ren (中國人) and that one wants to build a guo jia (國家) which is not China.5
Looking for more references to back my assertions. I would appreciate it if Gangsta would describe his rationale for his edits and then bring up any references he has. I'm pretty sure that I can find some pro-independence websites that describe Taiwanese as "hua ren". As usual, defending my edits means going to the library to find sources that back up what I "know" (and sometimes finding that I am wrong). Roadrunner (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Also I edited the template slightly to put Taiwanese-American under related groups which also includes
desinicization article I put in some updates that about the 5/20 election, which shouldn't be controversial. Roadrunner (talk
) 14:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
One other thing is not to oversimplify a complex issue. You could write an entire book on "Is Taiwan Chinese?". In fact, someone has [10].
Reply to roadrunner's 5 points
1. Most ethnic Taiwanese (not referring to the post-1949 Chinese nationalists) lack direct connection to China. Many view Chinese with hostility especially after the brutal suppression of Taiwanese cultural expression under Kuomintang. Many older Taiwanese served under Japanese military and were heavily anti-Chinese.
This just isn't true. My wife is a benshengren from southern Taiwan. If you want an examination of Taiwanese attitudes toward "China" and "Chinese" check out this file [[11]]. In any case the relationship between "China" and "Taiwan" is not the issue here. There are a lot of immigrants from Vietnam, Malaysia, and Singapore that are "Chinese-American" and "overseas Chinese." Also, it's not true that people lack connection with "mainland China." The amount of cultural and economic connections is rapidly growing and one interesting trend that Shelley Rigger points out is that younger Taiwanese see mainland China have more positive views of the PRC than their parents.
2. I don't know how the government handle this. But Government's action often tries to appease to international pressure. It has nothing to do with ethnic Taiwanese's self and community identification.
It doesn't matter *why* a government has this view. The fact that it has this view means that it should represented. If the government view is different from self and community identification, then this should be mentioned. In any case Taiwan is a democracy so the governments views on this topic just can't be extremely objectionable to the population or else they would be voted out. As it is you have a President who believes in "re-sinification" that got elected with close to 60% of the vote.
3. The Taiwanese-American you are referring to are ethnic Chinese who are descendants of the post-1949 Kuomintang military personnel. They are not ethnic Taiwanese or Taiwanese-American for that matter.
THIS IS WHY I FIND THE REVERT OFFENSIVE!!!! IT DENIES THAT I AM TAIWANESE-AMERICAN!!!!! My father fought for the Kuomintang. My wife is Taiwanese. I LOVE TAIWAN!!!! Now I respect Gangsta and your views, which is why I'm trying to find a good way to settle this argument. But you need to respect mine, since as I pointed out, it's not an uncommon one. This is why I feel very strongly about this issue since efforts to remove "Chinese" from "Taiwan" are part of a political effort to silence people with my views. Roadrunner (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
4. The concept of Han-Chinese lacks biological evidence. It is a cultural concept, which make the inclusion of Taiwanese highly controversial and even demeaning to some Taiwanese.
And that information should go into Han Chinese.
5. Consensus should never trump NPOV. The consensus of most Chinese is to include Taiwanese as an attemmpt to force Taiwanese to assimilate. The consensus among most ethnic Taiwanese is that Taiwanese and Chinese are ethnically, culturally, politically different. The claim of consensus is misleading.
1) Look up what NPOV and look up what "undue presentation" means and 2) you are just wrong about how Taiwanese in Taiwan view this issue. See the Rigger article that I posted. Roadrunner (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that the encyclopedia *shouldn't* cater to one particular viewpoint, but as I pointed above. Your categorization is hopelessly POV pushing. I urge to cease these activities immediatley.
I've made my objections clear. I've cite verifiable sources that illustrate my point of view. I'm happy to let other people with less emotional attachment to my issue express their views. Whether Taiwanese are "political Chinese" (zhongguoren) is a controversial topic. Whether Taiwanese are "ethnic Chinese" (hua ren) is not a controversial issue on Taiwan, and any article that contains only that POV gives undue weight to that POV. Roadrunner (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Please read
biological classification
."
Since there is no unifying "blood" among the so-called Han Chinese, Han Chinese is not a "race" but rather a "ethnicity". The inclusion of Taiwanese under this "ethnicity" is controversial due to the complicated history of Taiwan.--
Then mention the controversy. Also we are talking about "hua" not "han". Roadrunner (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate Roadrunner's efforts to be fair by including the note, however the note was not easily noticed in the context. I'm not sure how to make it more noticeable without making it ugly.
Then make it ugly. Roadrunner (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked over the links in the "Chinese Americans" and "Overseas Chinese" category boxes and I really don't think they are helpful or add information that people interested in "Taiwanese Americans" will want to see. Nearly all the information is related specifically to Americans from mainland China or Hong Kong.
I'm interesting in Taiwanese-American since I happen to be one, and it's important to see how this group interacts with Chinese-American and overseas Chinese. I'm perfectly willing to work on presentation and to point out that some people disagree on the classifications. However I find not including them (and Gangsta's attitudes) extremely offensive since it silences people that have my point of view on things. 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
That coupled with the fact that leaving it out doesn't draw as much attention as putting it in (it's not like we're including a boxes called "Non-Chinese Americans" and "Overseas Non-Chinese"), I think NPOV is best served here by not taking a position and leaving the categories out. Readin (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is that leaving out the template takes a very strong position. I object to leaving it out precisely because it suggest that there is no controversy when there is one. Roadrunner (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Leaving article with NPOV tag for now.
Rather than getting into an edit war which I don't have time for, I've put in an NPOV tag, and I'll leave it for a week and try to get some alternative viewpoints. I'll put in some sort of tag in the Templates once I figure out what to do.
I have removed the words See discussion on whether/if overseas Chinese or Chinese-American templates should be included. because these stuff are not supposed to be on articles. And if this [12] is your idea of "altervative viewpoints" then I rather not participate. I'm tired of discussing this with members of
The problem is that I think your edits are totally POV and factually incorrect, you think mine are. If you are willing to suggest any compromise edits, I'm open to them. If not, then we are going to just end up screaming at each other. I'm open to any suggestions you have. Roadrunner (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Roadrunner's edits
Roadrunner, I sense you are getting emotional. It is imperative that you not let emotion get in the way of constructive discussion and harmonious editing. Otherwise, you do not have the right temperament to continue to edit on wikipedia.
I would also appreciate if you can post your replies to mine and Readin's posts in an organized manner with signature at the end of every post instead of cramming them in between our posts.
As to your 5 contentions to my points
1. I don't care about your wife's self-identification or whether you have a wife or not. In fact, many Taiwanese have a problem with the term "benshengren" as in implies Taiwan is a province of China. It's a very biased terminology. Vietnam, Malaysia, and Singapore each has its own unique history. Using them as a parallel to Taiwan is a poor way to justify your point. I do know there are more economic connection, but it's the 21st century. (but certainly not cultural especially with
Taiwanization in full swing among the general public and the fall of Kuomintang dictatorship) Globalization means doing business even with hostile nations. Look at the United States (or the rest of the world, for that matter), its economic connections with China is also rapidly growing. It is also blatantly untrue that young Taiwanese has more positive view of the PRC. Taiwanese pride, Taiwanization, and the "taike" culture are the defining trend among young Taiwanese. A sense of Taiwanese nationalism
and identity is even stronger than their parents, who were brainwashed by the Chiang dictatorship.
2. I don't even know if your assertion is correct. If it is, then why didn't President Chen change it while he was in power? Your assertion is groundless and highly questionable. The Kuomintang was elected not because of overwhelming support for its anti-Japanese rhetorics but rather because of the DPP's failure to revitalize Taiwan's economy and the lack of other alternatives.
3. One could not claim to "love" Taiwan without feeling a strong sense of animosity toward China's continuous aggression toward Taiwan and Kuomintang's cultural brainwashing and brutal massacre of Taiwanese population. A Taiwanese identity and a Chinese identity are incompatible and mutually-exclusive. No, you don't "LOVE" Taiwan. You just "LOVE" Chinese Nationalist and Chinese communist can continue to bully, brutalize and, control Taiwan.
4. How could Taiwanese be labelled as Chinese if Taiwanese are not even Han? You're contradicting yourself.
5. Again, I urge you to come up with a more convincing argument than you are just "wrong". Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean he is wrong.
As for your claim that Whether Taiwanese are "ethnic Chinese" (hua ren) is not a controversial issue on Taiwan. Well I guess you presume you speak for all Taiwanese. It is controversial without a doubt. And you shouldn't dismiss this controversy as bogus.
I don't speak for all Taiwanese, but neither do you. I'm just relating my personal observations. Roadrunner (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Read this [13] to grasp what it means by ethnicity and race.--
Sure I'm getting emotional. Let me just focus at the question at hand before we get into a wide ranging and useless discussion of Taiwan politics. Are you going to allow anything other than complete removal of the templates? If nothing but total deletion of the templates is acceptable to you then we are at an impass since total removal of the templates is totally unacceptable to me, and I doubt that we are going to end up convincing each other. If you have any compromise edits, then we can work through them. If not, then the only thing that I can suggest is that we get more people involved in the discussion, and try to present our cases to a much wider group of people. Right now it is sort of pointless for me to rebut your arguments since I don't think I'm ever going to convince you. If we have a wider group, then we can continue the discussion there, (and the reason I'm willing to do this is that I have enough citations to justify my edits that I think I'm going to win.)
In the meantime, the only thing that I ask that you NOT REMOVE NPOV tags. Roadrunner (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain how this is relevant to this article dispute. Neither race or ethnicity are biologically determined but are social concepts. Absolutely true. One purpose of the wikipedia is to describe these social concepts, and my main objection to your edits is that they don't give an accurate description of how people in Taiwan and Taiwanese-Americans describe themselves, and in order to discuss that we need citations to fieldwork that describes how Taiwanese and Taiwanese-Americans actually do describe themselves rather than trying to fit everything into preconceived notions of what is going on. Roadrunner (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you think you're going to win is a problmatic attitude. None of us is here to "win". The noble concept of wikipedia is to create a comprehensive, objective encyclopedia. I'm not here to win, but to present an accurate, NPOV account. If you want more editors to join the discussion, then it is essentially pitting 23 million Taiwanese against 13 billion Chinese. It's a war Taiwanese could never win by themselves.--
I win by presenting a good case and by having the citable verifiable sources on my side. As far more editors, I don't want this to be a flame war, so let me ask if this is acceptable to you. I will abide a decision made by a political-diverse and representative sample of *Taiwanese* or *Taiwanese-Americans*. If you can bring me five Taiwanese or five Taiwanese-Americans that are representative of the community and then come to a consensus that my edits are flawed. I'll back down. Alternatively, I'll abide by any consensus reached by a group of people that don't have anything to do with the dispute. I think that your interpretation of NPOV is flawed, so that's partly behind my suggestion to go to arbitration. Alternatively, if after a week of discussion, there is just the two of us, then this issue probably isn't important enough to waste my time with.
The problem with your edits is that it implies that the situation as Chinese versus Taiwanese which is simply not an accurate statement of the facts of the situation. One thing that you'll discover if you try to do this is that if you get a political representative sample of Taiwanese, is that you'll have more of them agree with me than with you. What I'm trying to tell you is that it isn't 1.3 billion Chinese versus 23 million Taiwanese but rather probably 300 million Mainland Chinese + 5 million Taiwanese against maybe 10 million Mainland Chinese + 500,000 Taiwanese. Again you don't have to believe me. You really shouldn't believe me, but what I'm asking you do to is to go to the library, talk with people from Taiwan, and see what the situation is. Roadrunner (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The other question is are you willing to compromise at all, or is it "my way or the highway". I've tried to make a good faith effort to come up with compromise edits. If you are willing to discuss *any compromise at all*, I'll try to work with you, but if you are absolutely unwilling to consider any compromise edits, then just say so, and that will save me some time and energy in trying to discuss the issue with you. If nothing but the edits that you have proposed is acceptable, and your response to anything that I propose is to revert, then we really need to figure out something else to do, and I'm open to suggestions. Roadrunner (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Requested NPOV assistance and 3rd opinion
I've been in a tag on the NPOV notice board and also requested a 3rd opinion. If that doesn't work, we can work up the dispute resolution pyramid. Roadrunner (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm coming here from the NPOV noticeboard. It isn't so easy to understand what the dispute is about, but as far as I can tell, the main issue is whether it is proper to say that Taiwanese are mainly ethnic Chinese. May I make a suggestion? The phrase "ethnic Chinese" is pretty indefinite, since mainland China encompasses a large number of ethnic groups. How about saying something like, "most Taiwanese have ancestors who came from mainland China"? (If I have misunderstood what the argument is about, other people probably will too, so it might help to give a capsule summary.) Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The edit wars over the wording seem to have calmed down. The remaining issue seems to be whether to include the categories "Chinese Americans" and "Overseas Chinese" at the bottom of the page.
I'm not exactly a third party, but neither am I one of the two major parties.
I looked over the links in the "Chinese Americans" and "Overseas Chinese" category boxes and I really don't think they are helpful or add information that people interested in "Taiwanese Americans" will want to see. Nearly all the information is related specifically to Americans from mainland China or Hong Kong.
That coupled with the fact that leaving it out doesn't draw as much attention as putting it in (it's not like we're including a boxes called "Non-Chinese Americans" and "Overseas Non-Chinese"), I think NPOV is best served here by not taking a position and leaving the categories out.Readin (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm one of the two principals in the dispute. The problem is whether or not to include the "Chinese Americans" and "Overseas Chinese" template boxes. I recognize that the controversies involved, and I will make a good faith effort in trying to come with an system that will include note of the controversy and incorporate all viewpoints. I've proposed adding a disclaimer and/or moving the contents of the boxes around to take note of the controversy. I've also proposed having the groups listed under "Related groups." However, the other party in the dispute seems to settle for nothing less that to completely remove the boxes. This is unacceptable since it involves using Wikipedia to push a political agenda of
desinicization
rather than to present various points of view.
As far as the Chinese-American article, nearly all of the information there is about immigrants from the PRC and Hong Kong because people have been systematically removing all information involving Taiwan immigration from that article (by the other poster). I've been adding information about Taiwanese immigration into the US, putting it in the context of overall ethnic Chinese immigration into the United States, and it keeps getting removed.
The problem with not including this information is that a person not familiar with the dispute will come to the incorrect conclusion that "Chinese-Americans" and "Taiwanese-Americans" are separate communities with separate people, when they are not. Whether Taiwanese are "national Chinese" (zhongguoren) is something that is heavily disputed. Whether Taiwanese are "ethnic Chinese" (hua ren) is something that is not disputed within my social group.
Again, I'm willing to listen to any suggestions for wording, and if necessary, I have a ton of verifiable, reliable sources (government statistics, peer-reviewed scholarly work on Taiwanese identity) that shows that the viewpoint that Taiwanese-Americans are Overseas Chinese and Chinese-Americans ought to be included in the categorization of the article. The democratically elected government of Taiwan is ruled by the *Chinese* Nationalist Party, it calls itself the Republic of *China* and classifies Taiwanese-Americans as "ethnic Chinese" on official websites. Notable pro-independence people on Taiwan such as
Chen Shui-Bian
have stated that they consider Taiwanese to be ethnic Chinese. Etc. Etc. There are people who disagree with this classification, and their viewpoints should be represented, and there are also people like myself that agree with that viewpoint, and those viewpoints should also be represented.
Finally, people who are not aware that there is a conflict, should be made aware that the classification of Taiwanese-Americans is an emotional issue. Presenting material in a way in which a novice reader is not made aware that there is a conflict when there in fact is is very misleading and NPOV.
If you can suggest any compromises, I would be happy to entertain them. Part of my frustration is that the other poster has been constantly accusing me of violating NPOV while he hasn't been working with me to come up with mutually agreed edits, and has just been reverting my efforts to come up with mutually agreeable neutral presentations of the situation. You can see my edit history to see that I've tried to avoid making simple reverts and rollbacks.
Proposal: What about including Taiwanese-American in the Chinese-American template with a footnote "disputed"? And include the two templates in the article with a header that there is controversy as to whether Taiwanese-American's are Chinese-Americans or Overseas Chinese. The list of Chinese-Americans would also include a sublist of Taiwanese-Americans with a similar disclaimer.Roadrunner (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Also if anyone has a lot of good field work on the ethnic self-identification of Taiwanese-Americans, please post them. There is a *lot* of work on ethnic self-identification of people in Taiwan, but I couldn't find much scholarly work on Taiwanese-Americans. There is a lot of stuff that I'd like to add, but without citations, it's "original research." In particular, I get the feeling that Taiwanese-American argue a lot more about politics and identity issues than people in Taiwan (most of whom seem to be sick and tired of the argument). Roadrunner (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, my disinterested opinion (which you're not going to like) is that this category thing is not very important, with minimal impact on the overall quality of the article, and the best thing to do would be to have a vote and go with the majority, so that all of you can can work on something more important. Looie496 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. If there is a consensus among disinterested observers that this really isn't that important an issue, then it will make it easier to spend my time doing other things which actually do contribute to the reunification of the motherland rather than wasting my time on something that doesn't. :-) :-) :-) :-) Roadrunner (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"motherland"? Taiwan is already united. If you mean China (you seem very interested in Chinese) well, China is already united too. What more do you want? :-) Readin (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Please understand, Roadrunner, that as strongly as you feel your identity is denied when people say Taiwanese are not Chinese, there are Taiwanese who feel the same rage when told they must be Chinese. Readin (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with you that CG often engages in uncompromising blatant POV pushing in his edits. Readin (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Including links to "Chinese American" and "Overseas Chinese" in the "See Also" section is, in my opinion, superior to including the categories "Chinese American" and "Overseas Chinese". The categories are big and difficult to annotate with dispute info. They also make a clear statement that the editors believe that Taiwanese Americans are Chinese Americans and Overseas Chinese. The "See Also" option could be annotated, and it doesn't necessarily make a claim. Readin (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"As far as the Chinese-American article, nearly all of the information there is about immigrants from the PRC and Hong Kong because people have been systematically removing all information involving Taiwan immigration from that article (by the other poster)." Your argument that it's no big deal to include Taiwanese because it doesn't imply Taiwan is part of China because Chinese from places like Vietnam are also included is belied by the fact that Chinese Vietnamese Americans (is that what you call them) aren't included in the article except for a very brief note in the introduction. If Chinese Vietnamese Americans are just as much Chinese American as you claim Taiwanese Americans are, then there should be as much information about their immigration to the U.S. as there is about Taiwanese immigration to the U.S.. Readin (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the terms "Chinese American" or "Taiwanese American" as they are too often applied to people who have never even been to Taiwan or China. If you're born and raised here, as far as I'm concerned you're simply "American". Tacking on some other country sounds like an attempt to create divided loyalties. As for the "ethnic group" argument, in my dealings with people born and raised in the U.S. to Taiwanese parents I've found them to be American. They are very different culturally from their parents. Readin (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
About identity - I happen to have some friends that are hard-core independence supporters. But I've found that you can have productive discussions with people that you strongly disagree with. One thing that I have noticed is that Taiwanese tend to not care about politics as much as Taiwanese-Americans do. The relationship between "diaspora communities" and "homeland communities" is an interesting topic.
About Sino-Vietnamese immigration into the United States The history of Sino-Vietnamese immigration into the United States is a very fascinating story, and it may be productive if I add what I know. However, I'm not Sino-Vietnamese so there are limits to what I know. I'm Taiwanese-American so I'm more likely to write about what I know. One thing that makes it impossible to separate the two is that until 1979, immigration from Taiwan was counted as immigration from China, and talking about the history of ROC in the 1960's is very interesting.
But I will look for some sources and add information about Sino-Vietnamese immigration. Since a lot of this was connected to the Vietnam War.
About loyalties. I happen to have multiple loyalties to "China", to the "Republic of China on Taiwan" and to the "United States". Roadrunner (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
stop wikilawyering
The current state of the article, though not optimal, is satisfactory as it present the different feelings of the ethnic groups in Taiwan in the lead paragraph according to NPOV. The inclusion of Taiwanese in Chinese-American is blatnat POV pushing and contradicts the self-identification of the majority Taiwanese-American.
About loyalty: Your personal opinon or loyalty are irrelevant. Most Taiwanese-Americans I associated with (I'm multiracial with a bit of ethnic Taiwanese blood) strongly despise the "Republic of China" for illegal occupation of Taiwan. They also are extremely hostile toward the Chinese-Americans, especially new immigrants who hold the perverted the view that Taiwan is an inseparatable part of China, that Taiwanese are automatically classify as Chinese even though there are no biological evidence or contradict the self-identification of most, and that Taiwanese culture is somehow inferior to Chinese culture. It's a tough situation especially among the younger generation in college campuses, workplace, and high school. Their loyalty only ties to Taiwan with the ultimate goal of rectifying the name of the nation to the Republic of Taiwan. Misrepresenting Taiwanese-American's feeling toward Chinese and Chinese-American is misleading and offensive.
Most people you are referring to are not authentic Taiwanese. The diaspora community are not Taiwanese. They were born, raised in China, occupied Taiwan, then fled for the US. How could they speak for the ethnic Taiwanese?
Do not equate ROC with Taiwan, especially the martial law period ROC. That's essentially connecing the Japanese Empire with Taiwan.
Your point about Sino-Vietnamese is WP:POINT. Sino-Vietnamese are de facto ethnic Chinese while most Taiwanese are not (or at least debatable).--
At this point, I've talked to enough people so that I can take a chill pill, and not worry about the article for now. The people you know are IMHO *very* out of touch with the political and social trends that are occuring in Taiwan. Part of me wants to go point by point where you are out of touch, but I really shouldn't because a) it's a waste of my time and you aren't going to believe me and b) suppose I do convince you that you are wrong, you might change your strategies so that you might stop losing elections in Taiwan and make it harder for the people that agree with me to do what we want to do. :-) :-) :-) :-) Roadrunner (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
You're clearly missing the point. It doesn't matter if I'm pro-Taiwan or pro-China. All I'm saying is that the current state of the article presents both the Chinese Nationalists POV and the ethnic Taiwanese POV by addressing the volatile situation. Adding Taiwanese-American to the Chinese-American designation is an would unnecessarily inflame the situation.
The problem is that the fault lines aren't where you think they are, but since no one else seems to care, I'm not going spend too much time on this issue. As far as the reasons the KMT won and the DPP lost, you are wrong and you'd be more likely to win elections if you........ uh.... um..... (thinks for a moment.....)
Never mind. You are absolute right, and I am absolutely wrong. Just keep doing what you've been doing and victory will be yours...... Roadrunner (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with all the statements about the Taiwanese Americans we know is that we all tend to hang out with people like ourselves. There's a famous quote from I believe a Hollywood personality way back when expressing disbelief that Nixon had won in a landslide and asking how could Nixon have won "no one I know voted for him". It's quite possible that you are just in different places and know different people who have different opinions.
Personally, my experience has been that whether someone who says they are Taiwanese believes Taiwan is part of China heavily depends on whether their family came from China with Chiang. I was almost thrown off recently when I met a man from Taiwan (came to US as a boy) who claimed Taiwanese were Chinese. So I said "ah, you're parents were born in China, right"? And he said smugly "nope". Shocked, I was. Shocked! But then I realized I was talking to a young man and I asked him, "your grandparents?" He shyly admitted that yes, they were indeed from China. I have to adapt to the new generation.
But maybe I just don't meet the right Taiwanese Americans. Readin (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure it matters how you talk to, and that makes it very, very important to talk a large number of people to see what their concerns and beliefs are. One problem in being someone with strong political beliefs is that if you really want to change things, you have to SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE.
Whether someone in Taiwan thinks that "Taiwan is part of China" depends very critically on how you define "China" and that is a different questions from "Are Taiwanese Chinese?" which depends very critically on how you define "Chinese."
The interesting thing about the Taiwanese-Americans that I know is that the vast majority of them don't think of themselves as Taiwanese-American. The think of themselves as "Chinese" or "Taiwanese" but even though they have American citizens, they don't think of themselves as "American." Their kids are "American" but they aren't "American."
One other thing that I've noticed is that Taiwanese-Americans are *FAR* more extreme in their politics than people from Taiwan. There are two reasons. One is that if you grow up in the United States and you don't care about Taiwanese politics, you become a white American and assimilate. The second reason, is that in the United States you can associated only with people who agree with you politically. If you a strong DPP or KMT supporter in the US, you can end up talking only with other DPP and KMT supporters. Things are different in Taiwan, since you will have relatives, co-workers, and friends that have very different political opinions than you do. So people tend to be a lot more moderate in their views. Also identity is really the *only* political issue that Taiwanese-Americans can talk about, whereas in Taiwan it's only one of several hundred. Roadrunner (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I suspect you're right about the extremism of Taiwanese Americans. One reason I think you missed about Taiwanese in Taiwan is self-preservation. A Taiwanese American be extreme as he wants, advocate immediate declaration of independence no matter what the cost, and feel safe doing so. A Taiwanese in Taiwan knows that their freedom may cost them significantly in terms of their own blood and treasure, and more importantly the blood of immediate family members. That is bound to temper their enthusiasm for whatever they believe to be right and just.
Interestingly, above an editor said that the election of the KMT did not show that Taiwanese think they are Chinese because many other issues were important to them. You replied "The problem is that the fault lines aren't where you think they are". And yet here you say "Also identity is really the *only* political issue that Taiwanese-Americans can talk about, whereas in Taiwan it's only one of several hundred." I think you're right here. In Taiwan their identity is one of many issues, and Ma had promised (whatever his current actions - people voted on what they thought he would do, not what he has done since) that he would strongly defend Taiwan's sovereignty and he worked hard to portray himself as Taiwanese. He successfully took the edge off the sovereignty and identity issue. He won despite his self-identification as Chinese, not because of it. The extent that his Chinese self-identification played a role was that people thought it would help him achieve better relations with their neighbor. Readin (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There are tons and tons of papers on Taiwanese self-identification. One thing that the papers show is that Taiwanese tend to have "dual identities" and that they see themselves as both "Taiwanese" and "Chinese". There has been a dramatic upsurge in "Taiwanese identity" in the 1990's, but there are a number of papers that have shown that there hasn't been a decrease in "Chinese identity." Also the term "Chinese" here is not an "ethnic" identity, but rather a "national" identity. The notion that Taiwanese are not ethnic Chinese is an extremely rare one in Taiwan, and I have lots and lots of quotes from noted pro-independence politicians that Taiwanese are "ethnic Chinese."
The other interesting thing is that the Taiwanese identity is primarily a *civic* identity, and not an *ethnic* identity. Very few people in Taiwan regard Taiwanese as an *ethnic* identity. Again I have lots of research papers on this topic, and it is consistent with my own traveling to Taiwan. In any case the poster seems to think that only Mainlanders in Taiwan think of themselves as Chinese, and that there is a lot of ethnic tension and hatred between WSR and BSR, which isn't true.
The problem with all of the papers that I've read is that they all are about Taiwanese identity on Taiwan, and none of them address Taiwanese-American identity in the United States. And there is no reason to think that Taiwanese on Taiwan has anything to do with Taiwanese-Americans. One irony that I've found is that a lot of people that I've met with very strong Taiwanese-American identity actually have very little contact with Taiwan. They often don't read Chinese or Hoklo, they haven't traveled to Taiwan, etc. etc. What they know about Taiwan is what their parents tell them and what they read on the internet, or what they guess is true. If you put them on a street in Taipei or Tainan, they would be totally lost.
One reason that I've backed off on this issue is that I still think it is true that maybe 10% of people in Taiwan think that Taiwanese are not ethnic Chinese. However, I do suspect after thinking about it that among people who self-identify as Taiwanese-Americans, the number may be much, much higher. And the problem with using the opinions of Taiwanese on Taiwan, is that they basically don't care about an article on Taiwanese-Americans.
But that brings me to the irony which I think that self-identified Taiwanese-Americans will have to face. On thing that I like about all my identities, Chinese, Taiwanese, American, Texan, New Yorker, etc. etc. is that they are very inclusive. The reason I'm such a strong supporter of the KMT is that their message is that you can be both Chinese and Taiwanese. The reason I have a lot of problems with supporters of Taiwan independence is that their message is that you *can't* be both Chinese and Taiwanese. But if you can't be both Chinese and Taiwanese then how can you be both Taiwanese and American? You might say OK, Taiwan-centered means putting Taiwan first. But if you believe that, then who are you going to put first, Taiwan or the United States, and putting Taiwan first is going to be a problem if you can't speak Mandarin or Hoklo.
When I talk to KMT or the Democratic or Republican Party, they make me feel like an "insider." Sure I was born in the US, I don't speak Mandarin as well as someone living in Taipei, but I'm "one of us." Whenever I talk to someone from DPP, I always am an outsider. I'm not "real." Guess who I support?
Another problem is that TI supporters in the US put a lot of emphasis on ethnic blood, there seems to be a message that if your parents came to Taiwan fifty years ago, you aren't "authentic Taiwanese." Very few politicians on Taiwan (including strong TI supporters) will argue this because it is a vote loser. One problem is that if you define "authentic Taiwanese" as Hoklo speakers, then the Hakka speakers and aboriginals will vote against you, and Hakka are a critical swing vote. Trying to argue that Ma Ying-Jeou isn't "really" Taiwanese because he is a minority is a problem because so is, Tsai Ying-Wen, the head of the DPP and Lee Teng-Hui.
Another problem is that Taiwan is becoming an immigrant society. "Marriage immigration" means that a lot of people in southern Taiwan get married to wives from Mainland China, the Philippines, or Vietnam, and if you define "authentic Taiwanese" in ethnic terms, you offend a core voting block. Roadrunner (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally does anyone know of any
Croatian-Canadians, and it's very interesting. Roadrunner (talk
) 23:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Question about 3rd opinion request
A request for a Third opinion has been listed for the past four days. After reading the arguments here and studying the article's edit history, I frankly haven't been able to figure out whether or not this dispute has been resolved. Has it? — Athaenara ✉ 11:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Republic of China on Taiwan
I don't see what is POV about my edits, and I haven't been blindly reverting but trying to change things so that we have something acceptable.
It is a significant fact (and not a POV issue) that the that is being referred to is headquartered in Taipei and not in Beijing. How you choose to include that information I don't care, but that point should be included.
The version I reverted to allude to the Republic of China. Anybody who knows a thing or two about Taiwan vs. China issue would know it is impossible for the Republic of China to be issuing documents/surveys in Beijing.--
Sure, but lots of people who read this article don't have a clue about Taiwan vs. China and have no idea that the ROC happens to be what the government (or administration, or whatever) on Taiwan calls itself. Roadrunner (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Then we probably should rewrite every single article if that's the case.--
The standard phraseology used for this is "Republic of China on Taiwan" which is considered politically neutral in Taiwan, and which people from the Mainland don't seriously object to. Since you have objections to do this, I'm open to suggestions. In any case, articles should be designed for newbies that have no clue what PRC and ROC are, since people who know probably won't be reading this article.Roadrunner (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Headquartered in Taipei? Roadrunner (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Standard Wikipedia practice has been to use "Republic of China (Taiwan)" so I've changed the article to use that. As for rewriting every single article: believe me when I say I feel like I've reverted every single article at least once when people have tried to insert their POV by removing the "Taiwan" or changing the whole phrase to just "Taiwan" or even just "China". "Republic of China on Taiwan" is ok too but is less standard on the Wiki. "Taiwan" can be used when not talking about the government of the country, but in this case we are talking about the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readin (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Category and Navigation Templates
I did some reading on Wiki policies.
Wikipedia:Categorization says "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." Based on this we will not include categories like "Chinese American" and "Overseas Chinese".
The template for "Chinese American" is according to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, a navigational template. So Taiwanese Americans don't have to be Chinese Americans for the template to be included. Rather, the important question is whether and to what extent it helps in navigation. If only a small number of links are provided, then it is better to included the links in a list such as "see also" or "related articles. In this case as I noted earlier, most of the articles in the "Chinese American" template have nothing to do with Taiwan even if you consider Taiwan part of China. They are mostly articles that related to mainland Chinese Americans or Hong Kongese Americans. Given this, the template would bury the articles related to Taiwanese Americans in an avalanche of unrelated articles. The better way to handle this is with a link in a list. I'll add one. Readin (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan independence as the main factor of self-identity?
I find this following statement dubious and should be removed:-
"Supporters of Taiwan independence often object to classification of Taiwanese Americans as Chinese Americans and overseas Chinese while opponents of Taiwan independence often object if Taiwanese Americans are not included in these groups."
There are no footnotes to back up this assertion. How does the editor know if support for Taiwan independence is indeed the main factor for self-identity? And what do the people who prefer the status quo for Taiwan identify themselves?
Could we come up with another way of explaining the differences in self-identity without making speculative claims?--pyl (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually what's described is easy to understand. For supporters of Taiwan Independence, treating a Taiwanese anything as a subset of Chinese anything is objectionable because there would then be the implication that Taiwan is part of China. For precisely the same reason, opponents of Taiwan Independence want to include Taiwanese anything as a subset of Chinese anything. In terms of self-identity though, there is a lot of ambiguity, and support or opposition to TI is not necessarily the main determining factor. People who prefer the status quo would probably tend to still lean slightly one way or another be they green (pro-TI) or blue (anti-TI). But you're right, it would be good to have media references in this section too. Ngchen (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Readin and reverts
Please do not revert the whole edit without reading the content. There are more edits than the ones you have problems with. Reverting the whole edit like that is considered to be uncivil.
I didn't introduce the Chinese words into the article. They were already there and defined. Please read the history. I just use them so we don't use different terminologies in one article. That causes reader confusion. Please don't assume that I do things when I didn't. That's also considered uncivil.
I think according to Wikipedia policy, if you have specific issues with part of an edit, you can discuss here instead of doing reverts like what you just did.
I will now proceed to revert your revert. You are welcome to put dubious tags if you don't think the terminology is appropriate but I don't see the reason why you would because as I said they were already there at first place and you never had a problem with that. --pyl (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
