Talk:Taiwanese American

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taiwanese American article.
Article policies
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Asian Americans, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Asian Americans on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Taiwanese American is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
To-do list for Taiwanese American: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. Include general Taiwanese-American beliefs about American politics.
  2. Increase article size.

Contents

[edit] Changed statement

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

[edit] 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

Good catch. Can an admin please fix it? Jumping cheese Cont@ct 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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

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.

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)

[edit] Politics section

In the 2000 ROC Presidental Election 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.
This sentence sounds as if it's referring to the 2004 ROC Presidential Election instead. --A10203040 13:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Americans?

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?--Bonafide.hustla 00:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
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)

Your response is completely irrelevant. It is obvious that you cannot read Chinese or comprehend the the concept of "Chinese" as it is rendered in the Chinese language. What you are asking me to "prove" is ridiculous, but I'll do it anyways. examples you requested: "Taiwanese Americans make up about 5 percent of the nation's 2.7 million Chinese Americans, according to the latest US Census figures", Chinese Student Association: click on "External VP".--Jiang 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a chinese conducted survey. Please use a unbiased source. Please do not make false accusations.--Bonafide.hustla 01:30, 13 June 2006 (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.--Bonafide.hustla 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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 Jumping cheese Contact 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. =) Jumping cheese Contact 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)
You know...the Pan-Blue vs. Pan-Green issue. It’s basically politics. Jumping cheese Contact 06:48, 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 Jumping cheese Contact 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.--Bonafide.hustla 08:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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 Jumping cheese Contact 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]

--Yuje 04:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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. Jumping cheese Cont@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. Jumping cheese Cont@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. Jumping cheese Cont@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: Taiwan independence Jumping cheese Cont@ct 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
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?!? Jumping cheese Cont@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. Jumping cheese Cont@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". Jumping cheese Cont@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 Opposition to the Iraq War or 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. Jumping cheese Cont@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.--Certified.Gangsta 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Jumping cheese Cont@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. Jumping cheese Cont@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. Jumping cheese Cont@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. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. eg Arab American, African American, Scots-Irish American, etc.--Jiang 09:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well since you're splitting hair...see Hyphenated American#List. A overwhelming majority are defined by nationality. Of the 61 American listed with a page on Wikipedia...11 are defined by ethnicity, religion, or race (African American, Alaskan Native American, Arab American, Asian American, Basque American, Belarusian American, European American, Faroese American, Hispanic American, Jewish American, and 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. Jumping cheese Cont@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.--Certified.Gangsta 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls
Please do not feed the trolls
WP:NOFEEDING --Sumple (Talk) 05:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
?!? Anyways...the issue has not settled yet, so why did you revert back to the version that sparked all this arguing? Jumping cheese Cont@ct 05:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS. A reliable source is being cited. This debate is being perpetuated by a misunderstanding of the concepts of ethnic Chinese and the 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:V, WP:RS, and 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. Jumping cheese Cont@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. Jumping cheese Cont@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 groups
Ethnic groups
Anyways, 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". Jumping cheese Cont@ct 21:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
v • d • e
Ethnic groups in China  as classified by the People's Republic of China
Achang · Bai · Blang · Bonan · Buyei · Dai · Daur · De'ang · Derung · Dong · Dongxiang · Evenk · Gaoshan · Gelao · Han · Hani · Hezhen · Hui · Jing · Jingpo · Jino · Kazakh · Kirgiz · Korean · Lahu · Lhoba · Li · Lisu · Manchu · Maonan · Miao · Monba · Mongol · Mulao · Nakhi · Nu · Oroqen · Pumi · Qiang · Russian · Salar · She · Shui · Tajik · Tatar · Tibetan · Tu · Tujia · Uyghur · Uzbek · Va · Xibe · Yao · Yi · Yugur · Zhuang
See also: Undistinguished ethnic groups
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. Jumping cheese Cont@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 Thal to the US a hundred and fifty years ago, you would in all likelihood be identified as a German-American. If you did the same thing in 1968, you are considered a 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? Jumping cheese Cont@ct 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.--Certified.Gangsta 06:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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)
This is a porn site again probably made by a third party. We can't tell who has control over it. --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)

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)

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. Jumping cheese Cont@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. Jumping cheese Cont@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.--Certified.Gangsta 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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) =( Jumping cheese Cont@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. ;) Jumping cheese Cont@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.--Certified.Gangsta 08:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Jumping cheese Cont@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.--Certified.Gangsta 05:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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)


[edit] Concurrent discussion

See Talk:Taiwanese people for a similar discussion. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 06:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

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. Jumping cheese Cont@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. =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Input for other Wikipedians involved in this discussion so that the changes can be made? Jumping cheese Cont@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. Jumping cheese Cont@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.

Roadrunner 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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? Jumping cheese Cont@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)

[edit] Taiwanese Canadian

There a good amount of info regarding Taiwanese Canadians, so I'm creating a new page and moving the info over. =D Jumping cheese Contact 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Contradictory image?

Taiwanese American culture abounds in this busy and vibrant strip mall in the southeastern San Gabriel Valley of Los Angeles.
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? Jumping cheese Cont@ct 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.--Certified.Gangsta 18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
(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)

[edit] 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.

Roadrunner 17:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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. Jumping cheese 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion discussion

See deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taiwanese Americans (2nd nomination). Badagnani 02:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 United States nationality law and 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)

[edit] 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.

Roadrunner (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Research topics

Stuff that people can research...

  • Taiwan immigration to the US before 1949 and/or lack there of
  • legal status before 1949 - i.e. were people from Taiwan subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act or were they counted as Japanese
  • citable references on Taiwanese-American views on identity
  • Taiwanese American influences on Taiwan culture - i.e. pop culture
  • Taiwanese American lobbying groups - FAPA

[edit] Macau

Need to reword since I don't think that Macau is a separate immigration jurisdiction under US law.

Roadrunner (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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.