Talk:List of Chinese Americans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
List This page is a List and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Chinese Americans article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 6, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 18 August 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Taiwanese

OK I just noticed that you all are putting a lot of Taiwanese-American on here I don't really think it's right to do that because Taiwanese people aren't Chinese(華人,中國人) they do speak Chinese but that doesn't make them Chinese I mean American people speak English but they're not English, are they? --Jerrypp772000 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Chien-Ming Wang should be removed, he's Taiwanese --Jerrypp772000 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

Yao Ming and Li Gong should not be on the list

I removed Sophia Choi. She's Korean-American. Krballer 16:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ang Lee should not be considered Chinese American. His own profile says he was born and raised in Taiwan and was only EDUCATED in the US, and it does not say anywhere that he has got US citizenship.

[edit] Kristin Kreuk

Could someone confirm that Kristin Kreuk has taken American citizenship? She was born in Canada, is listed as a Chinese Canadian, and presumably still lives and works in the Vancouver area aka (Hollywood North) especially when filming the Smallville TV series. So, where's that criteria list again? Southsloper 09:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] S. B. Woo

I just renamed S. B. Woo to Shien Biau Woo which has been linked from a few other pages. Hope that's OK with everyone. Shien Biau Woo happens to be one of my next projects. Grokus 21:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion

What's the criteria for inclusion on this list. Would someone with mixed ancestry, such as Daniel Akaka belong? --Jiang 20:02, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would think that if he refers to himself as Chinese American, then it's a definite yes. Otherwise, it's hazier. Fuzheado 01:01, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Ang Lee

Is Lee Ang (or Ang Lee) a Chinese American? Surely not! Just because he made films in the US doesn't mean he has taken up US nationality. Mandel 12:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Related to this, does Joan Chen have American citizenship? Fuzheado | Talk 07:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ABCs

I removed those Chinese who are not born in the United States because:

  • They are not American-born Chinese
  • No proof that the government has granted them American citizenship (Permanent residentship is not included)

--Chan Han Xiang (signed by Jiang)

Please sign your posts. One does not need to be American-born to be American. If they permanent residents of the United States then they are generally regarded as Americans. Some of these people have lived in the US so long that it can be safely assumed that they are permanent residents. --Jiang 02:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)\

[edit] Americans?

I doubt if Jackie Chan and Jet Li is much of an American to me. Just because they acted in Hollywood does not prove to me that they are American at all, unless you can prove that they have American citizenship.

Wikisphere 23:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Proposal for list inclusion

I have made the following proposal regarding the criteria for inclusion for these lists. If this is something that you have comments or ideas about, please provide feedback. Thanks. Wikibofh 9 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)

Your proposal (no longer found on the Village pump page, but see permalink) is concerned with the definition of who is an ethnical (Chinese), but the discussion here is mostly about who should be considered an American. --HYC 23:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity lists discussion

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for current discussion of a potential policy to apply to all ethnicity lists on Wikipedia, including this one. JackO'Lantern 20:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored the Taiwanese Americans to the list. No Taiwanese will deny that they are 华裔 as the status of Taiwanese being 华人 is not disputed.--Jiang 06:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a reader of simplified chinese characters so I do not know what Jiang is trying to say. However, it is obvious that Taiwan-China relation is an extremely controversial topics not only on wikipedia but on a global scale. While some Chinese people (in the case of Jiang) consider Taiwanese to be Chinese, many Taiwanese considers themselves distinct and Chinese as their enemies, so in order to adhere to the NPOV policy on wikipedia a separate Taiwanese-American list should be created, since whether Taiwanese American are consider Chinese is a controversial political issue (see article: Taiwanese American).--Bonafide.hustla 21:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The English language is not complex enough to distinguish between the two senses of "Chinese" (one, 中國人, being politically Chinese, and the other, 華人, being culturally Chinese). The term Chinese 華人 is applied undisputably to Taiwanese people (even by pro-independence politicians such as Chen Shui-bian). Chinese Americans, as overseas Chinese, are by default 華人 too. If there is a group explicitly claiming otherwise, please provide the links. --Jiang 00:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think that the English language Wikipedia should know or care about these distintions, especially if they cannot be expressed in English. All the Ethnic Group list articles are meant to simply list people who (themselves or their ancestors) immigrated from a particular country. This existing 'list of Chinese Americans' article is, or should be, those people who came from China (mainland); the existing 'list of Taiwanese Americans' article are those people who came from Taiwan. No politics here. No culture here. No self-reference questions of the people involved--who knows what is in their minds. Just geographic facts.

Anything else should be removed as not NPOV. Thanks Hmains 02:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of verifiability. Who and where are the Taiwanese Americans explicitly denying that they are Chinese Americans. To deny that Taiwanese Americans are Chinese Americans by excluding them from this list is POV. see what we've done with the Mainlanders listed at list of Taiwanese people.--Jiang 04:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't see any links where Taiwanese Americans claim to be Chinese. By claiming Taiwanese Americans are Chinese Americans is like saying Taiwanese are Chinese. It is, without a doubt, POV pushing. Like, Hmains mentioned above, this is English wikipedia and they do not care about such distinction (I actually can't see any distinctions between Chinese and 華人). --Bonafide.hustla 01:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

see Talk:Taiwanese American . Again, Bonafide.hustla fails to realize the difference between 中國人 and 華人. Pro-independence politicians call themselves Chinese, but always use 華人 and not 中國人.--Jiang 03:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Half the people being removed are of mainlander background. If they or their families left before the localization movement, it is safe to say that their exclusion here and inclusion as "Taiwanese American" are contrary to their self and community identification. --Jiang 02:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I resent your idea of classifying and separating Taiwanese people into specific groups. As long as the person is born in Taiwan, he/she is consider Taiwanese. Their self and community identification has to do with their own personal political belief which is something we can't find out. Isn't it a lot more convenient just to add a note at the top of the article saying these people "might', just "might" be consider chinese but it is a controversial political issue.--Bonafide.hustla 08:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Just saying - If you have a source that says someone is Chinese-American or Chinese, you can call them that. But if the source says they are "Taiwanese-Americans" then that's what Wikipedia has to call them. Mad Jack 16:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In China, the concept of "ancestral home" is very important, with people often identifying with their ancestral home (of three generations in one place) when asked "Where are you from?" Until the 1990s when Lee Teng-hui invented the term "new Taiwanese" to refer to people like James Soong, it was unheard of for people of mainlander background to identify as "Taiwanese". Until the mid-late 1990s, ID cards, passports, military draft documents and a whole bunch of other stuff carried an entry for provincial citizenship, and the province entered for these people was not the province of birth (Taiwan), but rather the home province of one's father and grandfather. I am not making this classification up. I am just trying to show that it may be more POV to classify this group of people as "Taiwanese Americans" when the term "Chinese" in "Chinese Americans" carries no political connotations.

Your claim that "As long as the person is born in Taiwan, he/she is consider Taiwanese." is in itself a very POV statement. Identity politics remains a divisive issue in Taiwanese politics. In the 2004 election, Chen Shui-bian tried to take advantage of his opponents' mainlander backgrounds by calling them foreigners who would sell out Taiwan. Just a few weeks ago, rumors circulated that Lee Teng-hui wanted Wang Jin-pyng appointed premier to prevent a takover of the government by Ma Ying-jeou if a no-confidence motion were to pass. Both Wang and Ma are of the KMT, while Lee is very pro-independence supporter. The stated reason: "to keep the government indigenous". Ma, despite being a mainlander, as repeatedly called himself Taiwanese (as politicians nowadays are expected to do). But why favor Wang over Ma? Background has everything to do with this.--Jiang 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How is any of this relevant? Per Wikipedia:No original research, if you have a source that calls a specific person Chinese, Wikipedia can call them that. If we have a source that calls them Taiwanese, we can call them that. Doesn't matter what we or anyone else think about that person. Mad Jack 17:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because "www.geocities.com/Chinese_Americans" lists Mr. Sean Combs as Chinese American does not mean we get to add him to this list. Here, the issue is not of verifiability but of neutrality and accuracy. Do we need some random joe's website or some random country news reporter's dispatch for us to verify that George W. Bush is American? I think the whole world knows that. What matter is what everyone labels a person as, not what our random "source" says. One person, save the person in question, cannot even approach the authority of defining the matter.

In our case, we will find references to both. Who do we listen to? some cases obviously lean towards one more than the other, compare: [1] and [2] --Jiang 03:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but of course we don't use non-reliable sources, only reliable ones (so no Geocities). The first source says Iris Chang is a Chinese American (one of the Google matches even starts the article that way) so obviously she should absolutely be listed as that. If you check, none of the sources in your second Google search say that Chang is a Taiwanese-American. So this is a pretty clear cut case. :) Oh, and of course it matters what everyone labels a person as. If a person is specifically labelled as X-American by most reliable sources, that's what Wikipedia has to label them as, and maybe make a note of the reliable sources that label them as something else. You'll find that it's a fairly reasonable way to do these lists. Mad Jack 05:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've posted this before on another page, but it's worth repeating here. The labeling people with Taiwanese origins as Chinese Americans isn't original research. They're classified as Chinese in the US census, which doesn't have a separate ethnic category for Taiwanese. --Yuje 07:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer if you give a link that explicitly state the census is conduct this way. Even so, you can hardly use it as an evidence on wikipedia. However, it is understandable that the US government conduct it this way in order to be politically correct especially not to anger a power like China. In addition, the government of US has to do it one way or the other. On the other hand, wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should strive to provide NPOV. Whether or not Taiwanese are consider Chinese is a controversial politcal issue due to the political status in Taiwan, so rather than simply adding Taiwanese Americans to this list OR deleting all of them by proclaiming they are NOT chinese americans, I added a description that state the complicated situation between Taiwan and China. I don't know how neutral this article could be.--Bonafide.hustla 08:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You have provided no proof, nothing, to show that this is a "controversial political issue". Ethnicity is not tied to politics. Here's the census classification: [3].
Here's a reference from the presidential website: "呂副總統秀蓮女士更是華人歷史上，第一次經由選舉產生的女性副元首" (trans. Vice President Annette Lu is, furthermore, the first woman in the history of the Chinese people to have become vice-leader through an election.) Pro-independence people call themselves Chinese all the time, just using a different concept of Chinese.
Please dont make up an issue where there is none. --Jiang 17:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Except Iris Chang, no other Taiwanese Americans explicitly stated that they consider themselves to be Chinese; therefore it is contrary to their self and community identification. In addition, 中國人 and 華人 are the same. I have repeated this many times and there are many users who feel the same (see above). the inclusion of Taiwanese at this specific article without a explanation of the situation is POV pushing and therefore we need to either remove them altogether or make note that they are Taiwanese and the inclusion may or may not be contrary to their self and community identification. Thanks.--Bonafide.hustla 05:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[4]? I don't oppose the use of asteriks, footnotes, or whatever to point out the Taiwanese on this list.--Jiang 07:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to make a footnote or something like that. Stuff readers can refer to.--Bonafide.hustla 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You need sources directly on the people involved. It doesn't matter what the US census would classify Person X if this or that. That's the original research part. If no one called Person X a Taiwanese-American we can not call them that, especially if they were called Chinese-Americans instead. Mad Jack 08:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If these ppl are not known as chinese american they shouldn't exist on this list in the 1st place.--Bonafide.hustla 07:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you supply a reliable source that Chinese Taiwanese (as opposed to Taiwanese Aborigines) do not consider themselves to be ethnically Chinese?
The onus of proof is on you, becuase in ordinary usage, if someone is descended from ancestors of a certain ethnic group, they would be regarded as being in that ethnic group too: a person born of Jewish parents would normally be regarded as a Jew, no matter he or she is born.
So if you are contending that Taiwanese people are an exception to that general rule, you will need to prove it. --Sumple (Talk) 11:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Will someone please, please, please tell these people that they're being horribly wrong about their ethnicity and that Certified.Gangter knows better than thenm about their own identity? --Yuje 07:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

++++The whole discussion of this is totally wrong. I've removed the "98% of Taiwanese are descended from Han" because it is factually untrue and politically explosive. A much lower percentage of people in Taiwan are Han descended, because many Taiwanese who today identify as Taiwanese or Hakka are actually Sinified aborigines; the proportion is large, indeed 100% in some communities. Repeat: Physical descent from a Chinese forebearer is not 98%. Now if you want to claim that 98% self-identify as some kind of Han people -- Taiwanese or Chinese -- that's probably OK. But 98% by "descent" is an obvious error, though it is a common PRC propaganda claim. One could just as well claim that 90% are descended from Taiwan aborigines, since all pre-1945 Taiwanese carry aboriginal gene markers, as does many of the second generation mainlanders whose parents married Taiwanese of one kind or another. The whole idea of descent implies the bankrupt idea of race, which is asinine.

It would be better to simply give two separate lists, Chinese-Americans and Taiwanese-Americans, and cross-link them. That way all the people who think Taiwanese are "chinese" -- whatever that means to them -- can make the mental link, and all the people who think Taiwanese are not "Chinese" -- whatever that means -- can make the separation if they want to. 218.162.151.165 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Michael Turton

[edit] Chinese Americans = Americans of Chinese descent

... as defined clearly in the article Chinese Americans.

Recently, Yu Shyi-kun, Chairman of the DPP in Taiwan and a strong advocate of independence, defined himself as a Taiwanese of Chinese descent (華裔臺灣人). This is representative of how the independence camp in Taiwan identifies itself in general: as Taiwanese people of Chinese descent.

Thus, if a Taiwanese person of Chinese descent becomes American, he/she would of course become American of Chinese descent instead, hence a Chinese American. Of course, he/she would also be a Taiwanese American at the same time.

The same would apply as well to a Chinese Singaporean, a Chinese Malaysian, a Chinese Indonesian, etc. If they moved to America, they would be Singaporean American, Malaysian American, Indonesian American, but they would also be Chinese American.

What Bonafide.hustla and Mad Jack are pushing for above contradicts the self-identification of Taiwanese people, both green and blue. -- ran (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, Bonafide.hustla asserts that "中國人 and 華人 are the same". I'm not sure where you got this impression from, but more often than not these are used in contrast to each other; i.e. 中國人 = a national of China and 華人 = an ethnic Chinese. E.g.:

  • 美籍華人 = Chinese American
  • 新加坡華人 = Chinese Singaporean
  • 泰國華人 = Chinese Thai
  • 印尼華人 = Chinese Indonesian

etc.

This distinction is crucial in Taiwanese politics. Green supporters refer to themselves as Yu Shyi-kun, Chairman of the DPP in Taiwan and a strong advocate of independence, defined himself as a Taiwanese of Chinese descent (華裔臺灣人) as an insult against Blue supporters.

-- ran (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta: You reverted my edit because it is "POV-pushing". Whose POV am I pushing, exactly? Green supporters generally agree that they are Taiwanese of Chinese descent (hence, not Chinese nationals). -- ran (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Repost from above. it is obvious that Taiwan-China relation is an extremely controversial topics not only on wikipedia but on a global scale. While some Chinese people (in the case of Jiang) consider Taiwanese to be Chinese, many Taiwanese considers themselves distinct and Chinese as their enemies, so in order to adhere to the NPOV policy on wikipedia a separate Taiwanese-American list should be created, since whether Taiwanese American are consider Chinese is a controversial political issue (see article: Taiwanese American).----Certified.Gangsta 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so please explain why Yu Shyi-kun, Chairman of the DPP in Taiwan, and a staunch advocate of independence, defined himself as a Taiwanese of Chinese descent (華裔臺灣人) in an apparent snub to both pan-Blue supporters in Taiwan, and the People's Republic of China. The PRC was pretty annoyed by this too. This shows that everyone, blue, green, and PRC, makes a strong distinction between 中國人 (a person of the Chinese nation), and 華裔 (a person of Chinese descent). And when we talk about Chinese-Americans, we're clearly talking about people of Chinese descent.
To sum it up: when a Taiwanese of Chinese descent obtains US citizenship, he/she doesn't magically lose his/her Chinese descent. Descent has nothing to do with citizenship. -- ran (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a common misconception that no one live in Taiwan until after the communist rebellion in 1949. Millions of Taiwanese had live in Taiwan for 700, 800 years before Chiang Kai-Shek came over and murdered a whole bunch of innocent Taiwanese. Korean came from China too, it was even part of China for hundreds of years, way before the Manchu invaded Taiwan, yet you don't call them Chinese. Speaking of racial issue, human movement is very common in the history of mankind and throughout time races change and disappears. Do you still classify some Ameriicans as Vikings, Normans, Venecian, Carthagian, Babylonian, Sumerian, Prussian, Anjou, or from Navarre, Castille, Aragon, or Florence? Of course not. Apparently I took a huge step back in the previous discussion since the inclusion of these Taiwanese already is POV not to mention you trying to damage the "note" section.

To sum it up, most Taiwanese are definitely not Chinese, except the veterans that came with Chiang. The inclusion of Taiwanese on this list is communist propaganda and POV pushing.--Certified.Gangsta 07:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

800 years ago, Taiwan was inhabited by aborigines. However, the people usually called "Taiwanese" (and ben sheng ren) today are descendants of Chinese immigrants who arrived 350-100 yeras ago. Unlike Americans, they are not ethnically diverse. Please stop spreading misinformation. I have never heard that anybody thought Taiwan was uninhabited during Japanese occupation. Kusma (討論) 09:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. enochlau (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Certified.Gangsta: not even the independence leaning people would agree with what you said... they tend to think of themselves as overseas Chinese, like those in Singapore.
Besides, if you really believe what you said, then go to Demographics of Taiwan and History of Taiwan and fix those up first, since they completely contradict what you just said.
Also, Korea is a really bad analogy. Koreans are the descendants of the three kingdoms of Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla. They don't even speak a Sinitic language. -- ran (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Really, the word "Taiwanese" is the real political term here. The only people that can possibly be ethnically Taiwanese are the aboriginals. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Except Iris Chang, no other Taiwanese Americans explicitly stated that they consider themselves to be Chinese; therefore it is contrary to their self and community identification. [[5]] In addition, 中國人 and 華人 are the same. I have repeated this many times and there are many users who feel the same (see above). the inclusion of Taiwanese at this specific article without a explanation of the situation is POV pushing and therefore we need to remove them altogether--Certified.Gangsta 06:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is a little silly. I mean, how many American actors, say, have explicitly said that they are caucasian? enochlau (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta: I'm sorry, but your assertion that 中國人 and 華人 are the same is wrong. As a native Chinese speaker I can tell you that 中國人 means "Chinese by nation" and 華人 means "Chinese by descent". Feel free to ask other native Chinese speakers. Perhaps DPP president Yu Shyi-kun, who pissed off the PRC by using 華裔, is a good place to start. -- ran (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what the DPP, whose stated goal is Taiwanese independence, has to say about 中國人 and 華人:

[6]

  • "就像台北市匯集了全世界的飲食精華、特殊的書店文化及全球華人的多種客語，" - like how Taipei has gathered all the best parts of the world's cuisine, a unique bookstore culture and guest languages of 華人 around the world...
  • "也因此，台灣在華人世界並無成功前例的改變之下，必須經過一段人民與新政府、舊體制與新政權、新政權與新執政黨的交流、妥協與磨合，" - thus, Taiwan must, while undergoing a change for which there is no precedent of success in the 華人 world, go through a period of communication, compromise and friction between the people and the new government, the old system and the new government, the new government and the new ruling party.
  • "民主進步黨就是在這樣的背景下，始終站在歷史正確的一方，與台灣人民一起努力，創造了民主奇蹟，建立了華人社會最民主的國家。 " Under such a background, the DPP stood steadfast on the correct side of history, and worked together with the Taiwanese people to create a democratic miracle, and created the most democratic country in the 華人 world.
  • "9年前的3月，正當我們要進行全球華人社會，第一次由人民直接選舉國家領導人的時候，對岸的中國卻選擇向基隆與高雄的外海發射飛彈， " In March nine years ago, just as we were going to, for the first time ever in the global 華人 world, directly elect a national leader, 中國 across the straits chose to fire missiles towards the sea off the coast of Keelung and Kaohsiung. (華人 elect a national leader of Taiwan; 中國 is their enemy; so when did 華人 = 中國人 ?)

[7]

  • "華裔台灣人」這個詞，聽在討厭談認同問題人的耳中，的確是非常刺耳的，認為在台灣社會中分化台灣人與中國人已經不能忍受了，" - the term "華裔台灣人 (Taiwanese of Chinese descent), in the ears of those who dislike the problem of identity, is indeed very harsh; they feel that further schism between 台灣人 (Taiwanese) and 中國人 (Chinese; Chinese by nation) is unbearable.
  • 在2004年總統大選後，民眾在「台灣人認同」的共識已達六成以上，「中國人認同」維持在一成 - after the 2004 presidential election, the people's "Taiwanese identification" has reached over 60%, while "Chinese 中國人 (Chinese by nation) identity" is maintained at 10%.
  • 若認同中華人民共合國，認為台灣就是中國一部分就是中國人， - those who identify with the People's Republic of China, and believe Taiwan to be a part of China, are 中國人 (Chinese by nation).
  • 我相信台灣必定能夠為民主擴大做出貢獻，有朝一日能夠讓13億中國人也享有自由民主， - I believe that Taiwan will definitely be able to contribute to the spreading of democracy, and one day allow 1.3 billion 中國人 (Chinese by nation) to also enjoy democracy!

From the above examples, it is clear that from the independence point of view, 中國人 (Chinese by nation) and 台灣人 (Taiwanese) are opposed, while 台灣人 is included in 華人 (Chinese by descent) just as Singaporean Chinese and American Chinese are included in 華人.

-- ran (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, that link you gave is pretty damning. It says explicitly:

By contrast, the DPP position is that the Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese, but have the right to self-determination and that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are two separate sovereign countries.

"ethnically Chinese", in the sense that Taiwanese are Chinese in descent and ethnicity, but not Chinese by national identification, in the same way as Singaporean or Malaysian Chinese, corresponds to 華人 not 中國人.

-- ran (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just one of the many things Chinese tend to assume the thoughts of the majority of Taiwanese. It is a common misconception (not sure if intentional) that constantly pushes the idea that 台灣人 is included in 華人 when most Taiwanese felt it is not only insulting but factually wrong. Nevertheless, the asterik should stay as per discussion back in July.--Certified.Gangsta 08:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "assuming", I'm quoting the DPP, Taiwan's main pro-independence party. I've shown that there is a huge difference between 華人 and 中國人. What more do you want?

Also, previous discussions do not have precedence over later discussions. -- ran (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no distinction betweeen the 2 in English, so the article can be interpret as Taiwanese being Chinese is something without controversy. I am surprised at the level of wikilawyering and minor semantics pushing here. This is harmful to the project.--Certified.Gangsta 06:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is a distinction, otherwise why are we talking about Chinese Americans? If "Chinese" means Chinese nation, then the very term "Chinese American" would be a contradiction. If "Chinese" means Chinese heritage, which is exactly what it means in the term "Chinese American", then 98% of Taiwanese people are Chinese, and this is by the DPP's own proud admission. -- ran (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you are already involved in the discussion in Taiwanese people, the same arguments applied here. Taiwanese should be listed on Taiwanese-American list, Chinese on Chinese-America list, simple. Otherwise, it is pov pushing and communist propaganda.--Certified.Gangsta 07:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Supporting my entire argument from DPP sources is now equal to communist propaganda? Strange, I'm not aware of a DPP-Communist alliance in the works. -- ran (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Certified.Gangsta no offence but you seem to be anti-communist ;-) You have not provided sources that Taiwanese-American is NOT Chinese-American.
Taiwan seems to suggest the current status of Taiwan being a territory/state. (It may have been a country in 1877) It therefore follows Taiwanese are Chinese geographically. (Just like Texans are Americans.) I do not want to know how the Taiwan page arrived at its current content but for argument sake let's assume Wikipedia wants to be consistent. (The debate on this can never be settled on a forum)
From Ethnic POV most Taiwanese are Han migrated from the mainland migrated recently (within ~100 yrs). Only ~2% are Taiwanese aborigines. Statistically it is more likely a Taiwanese-American is also a Chinese-American from Ethnics. If you observe a Taiwanese-American on the list that had a Taiwanese aborigines background I agree they probably should not be on this list, otherwise I think it is more suitable that they stay on.
On a side note please if you do not understand Chinese, please do not say 中國人 and 華人 are the same. Looking them up on a foreign language dictionary usually do not give sufficient understanding. If you do understand Chinese then my apologies and I am sure we can have a meaningful discussion. You make a valid argument it's the same English word and I agree, but careful it can mean both nationality and ethnicity in English too, the question is which one is does the Chinese in Chinese-Americans imply? I believe it's Chinese ethnicity and American nationality, but that's my opinion. Cheers, --Tim8 18:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well.... Wikipedia does not say that Taiwan is a "territory/state". Instead, Wikipedia conforms to the NPOV policy and represents all of the following conflicting views:
  • That the Republic of China is the only legitimate state in China, and the People's Republic of China is illegitimate;
  • That the People's Republic of China is the only legitimate state in China, and the Republic of China is illegitimate;
  • That the China is divided into two states, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China;
  • That only the People's Republic of China is China, while the Republic of China is the official name of the state that is now coterminous with Taiwan, not a part of China;
  • That only the People's Republic of China is China, while the Republic of China is the state that illegally occupies Taiwan, not a part of China;
But none of these have anything to do with the current dispute. The current dispute is about the use of the word "Chinese". In the phrase "Chinese American", the word "Chinese" means a Chinese ancestry / heritage, nothing more. Hence Taiwanese are also Chinese even from the pro-Independence point of view, but only in this restricted sense. -- ran (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of Taiwanese at this specific article without a explanation of the situation is POV pushing and therefore we need to either remove them altogether or make note that they are Taiwanese and the inclusion may or may not be contrary to their self and community identification. Being Taiwanese doesn't make you a de facto Chinese.--Certified.Gangsta 02:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that you still haven't responded in any way to my entire 中國人 / 華人 argument, which was supported entirely from DPP sources. -- ran (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this dialogue. If you have a WP:RS that says someone is Chinese-American, then they are for the purposes of Wikipedia. If you don't, no amount of arguing, consensus, or opinions, however well written they may be, can change that. For example, I just added a source that says Lucy Liu is a Chinese American. Therefore, for Wikipedia purposes, she is Chinese American. This can only be contested by a WP:RS that says explicitly she is not Chinese American (this is a hypothetical example, I know there's no doubt that Lucy Liu is Chinese American - I'm making a point). It is so incredibly simple! If you have a reliable source for something, it's true for Wikipedia purposes. If you don't, then it can't go in the article. That's the beauty of Wikipedia - it's about verifiability, not truth or opinion. Mad Jack 05:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that explicit statements of "So-and-so is a Chinese-American" are extremely hard to find. What if a source says "So-and-so is an American citizen who is born in Shanghai"? What if a source says "So-and-so was born in San Francisco to parents who migrated from Shanghai"? What if a source says "So-and-so was born in San Francisco, and his grandparents were originally from Taipei, Taiwan"? What if a source says "So-and-so was born in San Francisco to sixth-generation immigrants, who were originally Chinese Hakka speakers from Thailand?" By your logic, none of these are Chinese-American. -- ran (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can give me all these examples and so on, but you'll be pleasantly surprised that it's incredibly easy to find sources that explicitly say most of, if not all, the people currently listed are Chinese American. A lot easier than Scottish American or Irish American, actually. Mad Jack 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between ethnic Chinese and Chinese citizen is important. There is no doubt in anyone's mind (except maybe Certified) that the Taiwanese are almost completely ethnically chinese. The matter is complicated slightly by the way the term native is used.

Taiwan has a population of 22.8 million. More than 18 million, the "native" Taiwanese, are descendants of Chinese who migrated from Fujian and Guangdong Provinces on the mainland, primarily in the 18th and 19th centuries. The "mainlanders," who arrived in Taiwan after 1945, came from all parts of mainland China. About 370,000 aborigines inhabit the mountainous central and eastern parts of the island and are believed to be of Malayo-Polynesian origin. Of Taiwan's total population, approximately one million, or 4.4%, currently reside in Mainland China. [8]

I'm Australian. I'm anglosaxon, my native language is English and I'm not English. Many people in my grandparents generation did consider themselves English, despite being Australian citizens, born in Australia, and never having been to Britan. They were just Englishmen living in a foreign country. Having lived in Taiwan for a good part of 6 months, I can tell you that a similar shift is happening there. The older generation considers themselves to be Chinese living in Taiwan. The younger generation considers themselves to be Taiwanese. They still think of themselves as 華人, but they've stopped thinking of themselves as 中國人. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong to say that the Hoklo population of Taiwan is ethnically Chinese. You are also wrong when you said most of them immigrated in the 18th or 19th century. No, Taiwan was not an Aboriginal-only country when Koxinga and then the Manchu invaded Taiwan. Immigration of the Hoklo population started since the 1300s or 1200s. The Aboriginals are likely pacific islanders. Before Chinese involvement, Taiwan was ruled by the Dutch in the south and the portuguese in the North (who coined the name Formosa). An interesting fact is many Korean came from China and immigrated to Korea later than the Taiwanese ex: Ban Ki-moon, yet you don't call them chinese?? Korea was also part of China many times throughout history. Taiwan was only invaded by the Manchu in the 1600s. The only reason the official language is Mandarin is because Chiang Kai-Shek tried to destroy Taiwanese culture after 1949. (228 incident) I don't know where you get the impression that older generation considers themselves to be Chinese because only 1st generation mainlanders (Nationalist veterans) think that way and they are an extreme minority. The old ethnic-Taiwanese hated the Chinese and they regard them as invaders and murderers of Taiwan. They are responsible for reviving Taiwanese culture and tradition. (ie. often forcing their children and grandchildren to learn Taiwanese, mandarin prohibited at home). Many support Republic of Taiwan or the Japanese Empire, but resented any foreign ie. Chinese influence. I know there are still people who thinks 華人, but recent survey generally shows that most Taiwanese see themselves as Taiwanese only. This is further supported by DNA testing, which shows Hoklo to be rather different from Chinese. Now we have established the fact that this is a controversial issue and I suggest all Taiwanese on this list be removed permanently.--Certified.Gangsta 20:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

2-28 was about a lot more than culture. Don't take my word for it, see what the US Department of State has to say:
At the end of World War II in 1945, Taiwan reverted to Chinese rule. During the immediate postwar period, the Nationalist Chinese (KMT) administration on Taiwan was repressive and corrupt, leading to local discontent. Anti-mainlander violence flared on February 28, 1947, prompted by an incident in which a cigarette seller was injured and a passerby was shot to death by Nationalist authorities. The island-wide rioting was brutally put down by Nationalist Chinese troops, who killed thousands of people. [9]
Same cite as above. Do you have a cite for your claim about DNA, or is that OR? What about your claim that 'native' migration did not happen primarily in the 18th and 19th centuries, contrary to what the Department of State says?
Even if every Taiwanese citizen stopped speaking Chinese they would still be ethnically Chinese (aboriginies excluded). It's in the blood. I don't understand why it seems so important to you that this not be true? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
1. Certified.Gangsta, can you verify that you understand the difference between 中國人 (Chinese person by citizenship) and 華人 (Chinese person by ethnicity)?
2. Can you also verify that you understand the surveys you referred to about identification as Taiwanese refers to 中國人 (Chinese person by citizenship) and not 華人 (Chinese by ethnicity)?
3. Can you supply a citation or a reference for the (a) surveys and (b) "genetic testing" to which you referred? --Sumple (Talk) 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Certified:

I know the sort of survey you're referring to. Those surveys speak of 中國人 (Chinese nationals), not 華人 (Chinese by ethnicity). I've posted plenty of DPP links showing that Taiwanese independence supporters do make a difference between 中國人 and 華人. You're still muddling the issue between 中國人 and 華人 by using the ambiguous English word "Chinese" for both. Please do not do this any more. -- ran (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think I know what Certified means by "blood tests". The problem is that such a redefintion would extend far beyond Taiwan. If we go by a North-Chinese-blood-based definition of Chinese, then we would be redefining the entire concept of "Chinese", and excluding south Chinese as a group, not just people in Taiwan. For starters, three of the four people in the Han Chinese box would have to go (Chiang Kai-shek, Soong Ching-ling, Sun Yat-sen) because they would no longer be Chinese, and many possible replacements would also be non-Chinese (Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, etc.). Certified: do you have a basis in sources for such a redefinition? -- ran (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean research showing that southern Han Chinese are closer to neighbouring ethnicities than northern Han Chinese? Yeah, by that definition 60% of China isn't Chinese. --Sumple (Talk) 23:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The Han Chinese identity is not a genetic identity. It's a cultural identity. And there's hardly any genetic homogeneity in the Han Chinese population, with or without the Hoklo population. And excluding the Hoklo population would suddenly mean that most people in Fujian are not Han Chinese. The whole concept is ridiculous. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know why so much emphasis is placed on self-identification. Is there some WP rule that I'm not aware of that specifies that self-identification is to be the only way a person is categorised on WP? Disagreements abound in China-Taiwan relations. Self-identification aside, there are a whole lot of people out there that consider people in Taiwan, excluding the aborigines, to be Chinese or Chinese-descent, and that needs to be taken into consideration. Also, the term "Taiwanese" itself is new and politically-charged. The only people who are truly "ethnic Taiwanese" are the aborigines. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Self idenfication is not the only determinant. There's nothing wrong with using other measures. However, I think it's OK to use the term 'ethnic' Taiwanese so long as we put quotes around ethnic to make clear that this isn't the usual definition of ethnic. It's a bit like the founders of the Australian Natives Association. By Native, they meant Australian born, which was an important distinction at the time. Likewise 'ethnic' Taiwanese aren't really ethnic in the normal sense of the word, but they do call themselves that, so we can too, if it's useful for us to do so. It's just a label, so long as we make clear what we mean by it, it should be fine. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic

I think we have just established that Taiwanese and Chinese are not only enemy states but also are ethnically, culturally different. ie. meaning it is wrong to put Taiwanese on this list.--Certified.Gangsta 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if we add short texts to explain the difference between "Chinese" and "Taiwanese", but I wholeheartedly disagree with taking those names out of this list. As has been mentioned before, "Chinese American" here means Americans of Chinese descent. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Certified, what do you mean when you use the word 'ethnic'? Because I think you're using it in a different way to the rest of us. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean "we have just established"? Who is "we"? On what basis did "we" establish this? I don't see any evidence of this so-called "establishment". --Sumple (Talk) 09:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Certified: we have established no such thing. Rather, it is you who have muddled the concepts of "nation-state", "ethnicity", and "ancestry" and then dodged the entire debate about the distinctions between these concepts. -- ran (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the Chinese' argument was that Taiwanese are Han Chinese so they should be on this list, but we have established that Han Chinese is a very vague concept with no "constant, unifying" DNA. ie. Some Korean or even Japanese could be closer ethnic-wise than Taiwanese or in this case Hoklo. Culturally and linguistically, Taiwan was not linked to the ROC until after WWII. Many ethnic Taiwanese in southern Taiwan don't even know how to speak Mandarin or speak very poorly in fluency.(ex: Lee Teng-Hui) They also resented Chinese assimilation. To be fair, if Japan didn't lose WWII, it is highly likely, base on your arguments, that we are adding Taiwanese Americans onto the list for Japanese Americans, which is obviously a ridiculous idea. But not anymore ridiculous than adding Taiwanese to this list.--Certified.Gangsta 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mandarin is not the only Chinese language, Minnan and Hakka are both Chinese languages. Mandarin is not a valid yardstick to measure Chinese-ness.
Regardless of how close the Korean or Japanese genetic heritage may be, we know that the Koreans and Japanese do not identify themselves as 華人. This is the crucial point that I brought up, the point you have dodged all this while: that the DPP acknowledges a 華人 identify, in common with overseas Chinese everywhere. This has nothing to do with identifying as 中國人 -- I've also shown that there is a clear divide between the two concepts of 華人 and 中國人, which the DPP reflects, but you have ignored me thus far.
Finally, if Taiwan did indeed stay with Japan after World War II, and if Taiwanese did identify as ethnic Japanese today, then there would be nothing ridiculous about putting Taiwanese-Americans under Japanese-Americans.
-- ran (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I come from Malaysia and I don't know of anyone who would suggest they're not Chinese because their mother-tongue is Cantonese, Hakka or Teochew or would suggest that these languages are not Chinese. Actually, to be honest, this is the first time I've ever heard someone claim Taiwanese Chinese are not ethnically Chinese (of course Taiwanese aboriginals are not ethnically Chinese). Nil Einne 19:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The only people who can automatically be classified as Chinese are Nationalist Chinese who were born in China.--Certified.Gangsta 06:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Chinese_Americans#Ethnicity_lists_discussion made my position clear on this issue.--Certified.Gangsta 08:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"The only people who can automatically be classified as Chinese are Nationalist Chinese who were born in China." What a load of clap-trap. Sure, you've repeatedly reasserted yourself, but I don't think you've managed to convince anyone else. We go by consensus here. enochlau (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First, consensus never triumphs NPOV. Just because there's a large group of Chinese editor doesn't mean you can push the pro-China POV everywhere by means of the so-called "consensus". YOu can say what you want about 98% Taiwanese being Chinese or whatever. But that would be against self-identification of the majority Taiwanese (even an overwhelming majority of 2nd generation nationalist)--Certified.Gangsta 02:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How about evidence then? A huge amount of that has been presented here to support the inclusion of those people you've been trying to edit out. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
NPOV does not require giving credence to some singular view espoused by only ONE editor -- You, Certified.Gangsta.
Please show us just one source to support your views, and we will go from there. --Sumple (Talk) 03:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're the one who messed up the compromise that states whether Taiwanese are consider Chinese is a controversial issue, which is the best option available. If I remove the Taiwanese on the list, it will be POV, but if you say Taiwanese are Chinese, it is even more POV, so why don't be go back to the compromise from last summer? instead of keeping a banned user's preferred version.--Certified.Gangsta 05:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Certified, what evidence is there that anyone but you thinks there is a controversy? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm tired of repeating them. Everything is already on the threads above. What I'm sensing is the difference between us is self-identification and blood. Blood is a bogus argument;however, given that not even all Han Chinese in China has the same DNA (Northern vs. Southern). Therefore, we should use self-identification when compiling this list.--Certified.Gangsta 06:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Certified.Gangsta, which part of "you need sources" don't you understand? As I've documented elsewhere ([10]), you have never supplied a single source to back up your claim that "whether Taiwanese are consider Chinese is a controversial issue", when other users have supplied many sources, from all sides of Taiwanese politics, which all point to one side.
Unless you can supply a source, we have to conclude that this is not a controversial issue except in your own head, which, I'm afraid, is not a reliable source accepted by Wikipedia. --Sumple (Talk) 11:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles G. Lee and Clara Elizabeth Chan Lee

Hello Admin, I would like to add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_G._Lee and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Elizabeth_Chan_Lee to this list rkmlai 00:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Article has been unprotected and I've added the couple. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gangsta RFC

Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Certified.Gangsta. --Ideogram 23:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also comment at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Certified.Gangsta redux. --Ideogram 01:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Article talkpages are not a forum to make these announcements.--Certified.Gangsta 08:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chien-Ming Wang

I removed his name from the list because of the fact that while he has an impact on American culture, he is not a Chinese American. Someone may need to go over this list and double-check entries. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 09:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new proposal

Okay, let's compromise [[11]] this version seems to be the most NPOV version as of now. Of course, until LionheartX came in and disrupted everything.--Certified.Gangsta 00:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove those with ancestry in Hong Kong from the list? I don't think there would be anyone from Hong Kong that denies being Chinese, unless they're one of the small number of minorities like Indians and Filipinos. --Yuje 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm against that because that version doesn't include a few names that ought to be on the list. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no room for "compromise" because you still have not submitted any evidence or sources in support of your views at all. --Sumple (Talk) 03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong, I sense that you are open to adding asterisk beside Taiwanese on this list in order to address the complexity of the situation. Yuje, if Hong Kong people are removed, feel free to re-add them. Sumple, you have already made your hostility toward me clear in the arbCom page and your effort to support users who pursue me (ex: Guardian Tiger/LionheartX, Ideogram, etc) doesn’t help. Nothing constructive could come out of discussing with you.--Certified.Gangsta 03:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting names from the list. Firstly, some of the ones you removed don't even have anything to do with Taiwan. Secondly, even for the ones that do, evidence has already been provided as to why they should be included, with no opposing evidence (and only your own personal opinion) as to why they should be excluded. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I will stop removing them if a note is added that address the complexity of the situation.--Certified.Gangsta 04:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense at all. If you want to modify or add text to explain a specific issue, then do so. You do not have to remove any names. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If we can agree to go back to the version I provided above. [[12]] Then I will leave the names there. The central point of this dispute is basically self-identification vs. the concept of race (which is obviously very vague.)--Certified.Gangsta 07:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't care which pre-existing version of the sentences for explaining the Taiwan issue is there, I only want the names on the list. Please don't remove them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That’s an acceptable compromise.--Certified.Gangsta 03:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok... so why aren't you compromising? You removed the names again. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are still talking about the "complexity of the situation" or the "controversial nature of the problem" without submitting any evidence that it is complex or controversial. It is not complex or controversial. The vast majority of Taiwanese people are ethnic Chinese, with a question mark only for the Taiwanese Aborigines. There is nothing complex or controversial about it.

Certified.Gangsta, you know nothing about China, Taiwan, or the world in general. Please go find a library and read some books. They're those things made of paper with printed text. Of course, I appreciate your apparent difficulty with reading what is written by other people, so you may need to opt for those with large print or pictures.

My alleged hostility towards you, if it exists, results entirely from your persistent attempts to impose your extremely ignorant, if not insane, views on Wikipedia. Until you become less ignorant, more rational, or at least more coherent, that stance will continue. --Sumple (Talk) 04:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, all you're doing is spreading communist propaganda. Go talk to any random Taiwanese, do they self-identified as Chinese? Not no, but hell no. How can Taiwanese be Chinese when Chinese is the evil Empire that is trying to invade Taiwan? Taiwanese are Taiwanese, Chinese are Chinese, not that complicated. If one day we consider Korean as Chinese (it's in the blood, isn't it) then maybe I will reconsider my stance. But until that, not a chance.

HongQiGong, I didn't remove any names except to re-add the footnote.--Certified.Gangsta 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. You only stopped removing names after the ArbCom case closed. Anyway, FYI, I do know Taiwanese people who consider themselves Chinese or 華人. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Show me a published source. If what you say is true, then there must be some source to back it up with somewhere out there, right? Or are these "Taiwanese" of which you speak so scared of the "Evil Empire" that they don't dare speak their mind, even on the government website?
FYI, of all the Taiwanese people I have met, no-one has advocated themselves to be ethnically non-Chinese. --Sumple (Talk) 03:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename the list?

I think the name of this list causes unnecessary confusion between 華人 and 中國人. What if we renamed it to List of Han Americans, to make clear that we mean 華人? Or if we split it into two lists, one for 華人 and another for 中國人? Though I'm not sure what we'd call the second list. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Han American" is neologistic. There is no confusion here, only someone who wants to wage a political war with articles like this one. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Ethnic Chinese =/= Han Chinese; see, e.g. Hui people. There is no confusion for anyone except Certified.Gangsta, who refuses to examine anyone else's point of view, and who still has not supplied any evidence or sources for his persistent "controversy" claim. --Sumple (Talk) 04:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To add - we as WP editors can argue till the end of time on how we personally define a person as "Chinese", but that hardly matters in the face of the mountain of evidence that's been provided above in this Talk page itself. The Taiwanese government, both the ruling party and the main opposition party, define Taiwanese people as Chinese or "ethnically Chinese". And more importantly, the individuals on this list have called themselves "Chinese American". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not arguing about Taiwanese being Chinese.  :-) And I know such a rename would cause us to treat non Han Chinese differently. I'm just wondering about a Chinese citizen who is not ethnically Chinese. Uncommon perhaps, but I assume it happens occasionally. Would such people belong on this list? It's not a big deal, but such a person is Chinese in a completely way to a Taiwanese. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Good question... does this list work in reverse? As in, would American-born people who later lived/naturalised in China be included on this list? --Sumple (Talk) 02:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the term "Chinese American" usually refers to Chinese who have naturalised in America... though it is an interesting question. I don't know why, but using "Chinese American" to refer to an American naturalised in China doesn't sound right. enochlau (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Like Israel Epstein. --Sumple (Talk) 09:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta's revert

I just want to state for the record that I don't care what texts are there to explain that the Taiwanese American issue may be controversial, if any text even exists at all to explain the situation. I am taking no side in that disagreement. My only concern is that the people who ought to be listed on this list are listed on this list. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ok enochlau (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Taiwanese Americans AFD

You folks might be interested to know that List of Taiwanese Americans is on AFD right now, along with a bunch of other Xese American lists. Kappa 08:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] List by claim to fame

The list as it currently stands is, unfortunately, not very helpful. Most similar lists have opted for listing people according to their claim to fame instead of listing them by their name. Such an approach would benefit this article as well. It's both more user-friendly and the standard design for articles of this kind. JdeJ 10:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jet Li

jet has US citizenship? --Wongba 19:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed him. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] list organization

Most lists of this type are organized by the occupation and then alphabetical within each occupation section. Is there any reason why this list is not organized in the same way? Hmains 05:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)