Talk:Taiwanese people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taiwanese people 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.
High This article has been rated as High-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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taiwanese people article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Talk:Taiwanese people (archive) (Latest) →


Contents

[edit] Draft of NPOV LEDE

OK:

Taiwanese people may refer to individuals who either claim or are imputed nationality or possess citizenship in the Republic of China (ROC), or its largest administered territory, the island of Taiwan. While citizenship is an objectively determined legal status, at least [number..four? five?] competing (and sometimes overlapping) standards can be used to determine one's nationality as a Taiwanese person: [insert list of standards here]. The complexity resulting from competing standards is compounded by a larger dispute regarding the political identity of the ROC itself, and its potential de jure independence or political (re)unification with the People's Republic of China.

The composite category of "Taiwanese people" includes a significant population of at least [number: three? four? five?] constituent ethnic groups: [insert list here].

  • [Please do not directly edit the above draft. Suggest a correction or improvement below this post..]

--Ling.Nut 22:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good. I might suggest "dejure Independence" and "political unification". Maowang 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Changes so made (I can change my version, since I wrote it. ;-) ). Ling.Nut 03:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "Taiwanese" can be objectively labelled as a "nationality". And why is ROC citizenship anyway? Just about any overseas Chinese who wants to get a Republic of China passport can do so, but that gives no rights to live and vote in Taiwan. This is making a political/legal definition out of something social/cultural. The first sentence can start out with the obvious: "Taiwanese people are individuals originating from or living in Taiwan, with determining factors such as citizenship in the Republic of China, ancestry in the island of Taiwan, or permanent residency in the greater Taiwan Area. In the second sentence, "determine one's nationality as a Taiwanese person" should be "determine one's status as a Taiwanese person" to encompass non-legal identities. The last sentence can be "The complexity resulting from competing standards is compounded by a larger dispute regarding the debate over Taiwan's political identity, and its potential de jure independence or political unification with the People's Republic of China." --Jiang 04:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


  • "right to vote" is much closer to the heart of citizenship than "possession of a passport." Besides, your lede uses "citizenship" as well. :-)
  • Please see Nationality. It refers to state, and the def of ROC includes the term state, presumably after a nearly infinite amount of bickering, haggling and hair-pulling. ;-) I'm not seeing this as a descent into legal terminology; I'm seeing it as maintaining consistency with other articles.
  • My lede draws a line between citizenship and nationality from the onset — a point of key importance.
  • "Permanent residency"? Meaning someone who lives there but can't vote is automatically a Taiwanese person?
  • Thanks! --Ling.Nut 05:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My version states that citzenship can be a determining factor of being Taiwanese, but your version makes citizenship the embodiment of being Taiwanese.
  • There can be "Taiwanese people" regardless of whether the ROC exists, legitimately or otherwise, so the definition of Taiwanese cannot be based on the existence of the ROC. While an argument can be made that Taiwanese is a nationality, this is clearly not a universally accepted view. The meaning of the term can remain the same without defining it as such.
  • I'm not sure what difference you are drawing between citizenship and nationality. And how would these terms be reflected in Chinese?
  • Permanent residency as in the right of abode.--Jiang 07:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No. My version of the lede makes citizenship the embodiment of one argument for claiming to be Taiwanese. There are also four/five other arguments.
  • As for the diff b/w citizenship and nationality, the full answer would be found by reading those two respective articles. The short answer is, nationality can include even the softest/mushiest/most purely subjective of Ward Churchillian "I am 'cause I say I am." arguments. Citizenship cannot. :-)
  • Yes there can be Taiwanese people whether or not the ROC existed, which is why the words "or its largest administered territory... taiwan" are in the def. :-) If the ROC did not exist, people from Kinmen or other outlying islands would not be Taiwanese. --Ling.Nut 09:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well...maybe....or maybe not. It depends on how they imagine themselves as a community (See Anderson). Many people on Lanyu (Orchid Island) who are administered by the ROC do not identify as Taiwanese, and even a few would like to be incorporated into the Republic of the Philippines because they imagine themselves as being culturally closer to the Filipinos... of course this is rooted in a feeling being colonized and wishing to identify with another group than the one who is oppressing them. Many Okinawans identify as being closer to Chinese as they feel oppressed by Japan. blah blah blah... Then there are the people in Japan and the United States who, following the end of WWII, never returned and are identified either by themselves or by others as Taiwanese, but have no connection to the ROC... then there's the high percentage of old people I have interviewed who identify themselves as "Japanese", when given the choice, because it was the language and custom of their youth... it is all highly personal. To read it literally an ROC citizen is a Chinese citizen... although most ROC citizens would say they are Taiwanese.Maowang 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

But the defs overlap/contradict. By the "citizenship" def, people on Lanyu Kinmen etc. are "taiwanese." By the "self-identifying" def they could be Kinmenese or lanyu-ese or whatever. That isn't the point. :-) The point is that the "nationality" def covers the second option, and can also cover the case of being "Taiwanese" if that's how they are perceived and/or self-identify.
The word "nationality" is giving Jiang pause 'cause it sounds too much like "nation" which sounds too much like "country."
--Ling.Nut 13:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is my investigation getting me?

Taiwanese people may refer to individuals who either claim or are imputed nationality or possess citizenship in the Republic of China (ROC), or its largest administered territory, the island of Taiwan. While citizenship is an objectively determined legal status, at least [number..four? five?] competing (and sometimes overlapping) standards can be used to determine one's nationality as a Taiwanese person: [insert list of standards here]. The complexity resulting from competing standards is compounded by a larger dispute regarding the political identity of the ROC itself, and its potential dejure independence or political (re)unification with the People's Republic of China.

  • The composite category of "Taiwanese people" includes a significant population of at least [number: three? four? five?] constituent ethnic groups: [insert list here].


Taiwanese people as a group identity:

Although group identity is often claimed on the basis of ancestry and culture, it is, in actuality, held together by a common socio-political experience (Corcuff 2000). The concept of a Taiwanese people relies on mythologized constructions of groups of humans that may or may not imagine themselves to belong to a single community. It should also be noted that identities are not fixed, but fluid and change with time and memory or in response to a changing environment rather than stemming from a primordial or authentic source (Bhabha 1990:1);(Brown 2004:5).

According to the theory proposed by social theorist Benedict Anderson in his highly influential work Imagined Communities, the Taiwanese people are those people who imagine themselves a part of a national community that regards itself as Taiwanese. Any connection Taiwanese may have with one another is purely imaginary, based on the shared belief in a common destiny stemming from the very real parameters of daily life including: Government, Economy, Education, Popular Culture and Electronic/Print Media (Anderson 1983);(Hsiau 2000:10-14). Political leaders often attempt to manipulate and fix identities for political advantage and totalize the imagined community and assign an essentialist identity to the community for political gain. New identities are continually emerging based on individuals’ perceptions of commonalities and differences as the patterns of local communities, kinship and language pattern usage change with economic, cultural and demographic change. These changes can also result in the creation of shift in new ethnic identities based on the national experience (Harrell 1996:5). . The earliest notion of a Taiwanese group identity emerged in the form of a national identity following the Qing empire’s ceding of Taiwan to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki in1895 (Morris 2002:3-6). Prior to Japanese colonization, residents of Taiwan developed relationships based on class solidarity and social connections rather than ethnic identity. Although Han often cheated Aborigines, they also married and supported one another against other residents of the same ethnic background. Taiwan was the site of frequent feuding based on ethnicity, lineage and place of origin (Lamley et al. ; Shepherd:310-323).

In the face of the Japanese colonial hierarchy, the people of Taiwan were faced with the unequal binary relationship between colonizer and colonized, This duality between “one” and “other” was evident in the seven years of violence between the Japanese and groups of united anti-Japanese Han and Aborigines (Katz 2005).

The Japanese employed a system of household registers based on the notion of “race” to distinguish groups of colonial subjects. From within the group of “non-Japanese” the colonial government divided Han citizens into “Han” and “Hakka” based on their perception of linguistic and cultural differences and the Japanese maintained the Qing era classification of Aborigines as either “raw” or “cooked” (Brown 2004:8). The Japanese era distinctions embodied the social ramification of ethnic origin and perceived loyalty to the empire [[Harvcol|Wolfe and Huang|1980|p=19}} Only later did the Japanese attempt to incorporate Taiwanese into the Japanese identity as “loyal subjects, but the cleavage between the experience of the colonized and the colonizer only emphasized the polarity between the two groups (Fujii 2006:70-73).

  1. Instead of {{Harvcol|Anderson|1983}};{{Harvcol|Hsiau|2000|pp=10-14}} which gives (Anderson 1983);(Hsiau 2000:10-14) try ({{Harvcolnb|Anderson|1983}};{{Harvcolnb|Hsiau|2000|pp=10-14}}) (NOTE the letters "nb" after "Harvcol", and note the manually-inserted parentheses enclosing the group of citations) which gives (Anderson 1983;Hsiau 2000:10-14).
  2. Um. We can explore the historical aspects later. :-) I'm interested in a working def of what "Taiwanese people" means today. :-) I'm also interested in addressing Jiang's concerns... all without expanding the def into a Loki's wager :-)

Ling.Nut 15:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it can be discussed and shown to exist as an immagined community, which constitutes a nation and citizenship, whether defacto or dejure can be one aspect of national identity and a national experience can be a defining point of ethnicity. Basically, the collectivity known as Taiwanese, share a common socio-political experience under the governance of the ROC and all that it embodies (taxes, education, print and mass media, legal systems and popular culture. It is the experience that makes the identification possible as "one". This makes the ROC citizenship as a prerequisite to Taiwanese identity a non-starter as it attempts to exclude the possibility of a person who experiences life in the ROC but lacks citizenship from being "one" whether they are accepted or not. The citizenship prerequisite acts as a form of essentialization, which in all forms can not exist as discussed above (outside of political rhetoric) i.e. Political leaders often attempt to manipulate and fix identities for political advantage and totalize the imagined community and assign an essentialist identity to the community for political gain. New identities are continually emerging based on individuals’ perceptions of commonalities and differences as the patterns of local communities, kinship and language pattern usage change with economic, cultural and demographic change. These changes can also result in the creation of shift in new ethnic identities based on the national experience (Harrell 1996:5). I guess Citizenship as a prerequisite can be discussed as one option, but I really don't think even the political leadership is standing by that. See the New Taiwanese speech and other options discussed. "Anyone who loves Taiwan as their home is a Taiwanese" I believe was the rhetoric coming from both political parties in the 2004 elections. Not all ROC citizens feel they are Taiwanese either. I have a friend in Seattle who was born in Korea to parents born in the ROC before 1949, in Shantung. They all hold ROC citizenship. The ROC constitution also allows for "Overseas Chinese" to have representation in the legislature...they are not "overseas Taiwanese". Immagined Community of people who identify themselves as Taiwanese, which leaves room for ROC citizens on Taiwan who do not identify as Taiwanese space to dissent.Maowang 15:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm stuck on this whole "imagined" thing. If it exists, then how is it merely imagined, pray tell? All notions of a collective identity are merely notions that have been reified through custom and use. --Ling.Nut 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, if we go with Imagined communities, then they are taiwanese if they think they are.... but then it is dependent upon perceptions, leaving one open to "No true Scotsman" problems Ling.Nut 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The terminology is weird but...

The best example I can give is: On 911, when terrorists crashed planes into the WTC, people in Seattle, 3000 miles away, said, "We're being attacked!" or "They attacked us". The people in Seattle were not experincing an actual attack, but felt a sense of "we" with groups of people they would likely never have met in their lives. This sense of solidarity revolves around an imaginary sense that "those people" are living similar lives to "us". We will never know most of our countrymen, but we imagine they are there, living like we are, within the same systems, reading similar news, eating similar foods etc... Now, on 911, an hour or so north of Seattle, people in Vancouver Canada, were saying..." they've been attacked". That is the imagined community. Entering the immagined community is predicated on being imaginable to the community. For Taiwan to be a multi-ethnic community, the people of the community will have to come to some concensus to be willing to forget prior common memories (Hsiau ; Bhabha). This phenomenon is already happening as the discourse on hybridity has entered the mainstream. A documentary was on TV two nights ago about the struggles of Chinese brides and the discrimination they face. Taiwanese are already comfortable embracing their cultural hybridity. As Stewart Hall points out in Cultural Identity and Diaspora, "The concept of authenticity assumes fixed,essential and unitary constructs of cultures, identities and groupings...collective identity is a matter of "becoming" as well as "being". Maowang 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK... but.... where does that leave us with the WP:LEDE? we can't say, "Hey, if you think you're Taiwanese, you are." Don't make me make a wikilink to the WC person again....the native American community rejected his claims... --Ling.Nut 17:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is how I tried to say it before.

The Taiwanese people are those people who imagine themselves a part of a national community that regards itself as Taiwanese. Any connection Taiwanese may have with one another is purely imaginary, based on the shared belief in a common destiny. The sense of common destiny stems from the very real parameters of daily life including: Government, Economy, Education, Popular Culture and Electronic/Print Media (Anderson, 1983).

So really... you need to be participating in the community under the listed "forces" and be imagined by the community as well as imagine yourself within the community. Maowang 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, if the PRC blockades/invades Taiwan, then the connection between the people will be a little more than imaginary. ;-)
  • I just don't like the word imaginary, period. Not at all. I mean, I can see what is meant by it. I know it comes from a respected scholar. But in popular parlance, if you fling out the word "imaginary," people will think, "He-e-y, they ain't no such thing as Tai-wan-ese, huh?"
  • I can go with something that is "communally shared" and "intangible" maybe, but not imaginary. The academic usage implies things that are contradicted by the popular usage. --Ling.Nut 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Taiwanese: "A community of individuals with a strong emotional sense of unity as Taiwanese. This unity is rooted in the collective memory of a perceived common socio-political experience as a communtiy of fate."Maowang 08:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I really wish this were easy by simply saying Taiwanese are X,Y and Z... but experience tells me otherwise.Maowang 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition is recusrsive, cannot include "Taiwanese." Also don't like "strong" as qualification. Several good useful, related terms on pages linked to "meme." --Ling.Nut 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I keep thinking of what the law school professor, Karl Llewellyn a.k.a. Cass Sunstein, calls "incompletely theorized agreements" as being the key to social stability. If groups of people can come to some agreement on the general principles without overdefining them, it allows each person or group to come to their own conclusion. We can all say we agree with the idea of liberty, but disagree with what it means to us. If we define it to a point, we exclude all other opinions for such a broad hypothesis.Maowang 02:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bennedict Anderson has this annecdote:

"What will come out of these migrations—what identities are being and will be produced—are hugely complex, and largely still unanswerable, questions. It may amuse you if, on this subject, I insert a short personal anecdote. About four years ago I taught a graduate seminar at Yale University on nationalism, and at the outset I asked every student to state their national identity, even if only provisionally. There were three students in the class who, to my eyes, seemed to be ‘Chinese’ from their facial features and skin colour. Their answers surprised me and everyone else in the room. The first, speaking with an absolutely West Coast American accent, firmly said he was ‘Chinese’, though it turned out he was born in America and had never been to China. The second quietly said he was ‘trying to be Taiwanese’. He came from a KMT family that had moved to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-shek in 1949, but was born in Taiwan, and identified there: so, not ‘Chinese’. The third said angrily, ‘I’m a Singaporean, dammit. I’m so tired of Americans thinking I’m Chinese, I’m not!’ So it turned out the only Chinese was the American."Maowang 03:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maowang, you are confusing "nationality" with "identity". Singaporean Chinese will firmly state they are "Singaporean" despite being completely of Chinese background, because that is their nationality. The American-Chinese cannot claim to be Chinese because he was raised as an American. He should say he's "American-Chinese" or "American of Chinese descent" if he wants to tell people of his ethnicity, but otherwise he should only state he's "American". As for the "Taiwanese", it is not a nationality though it has become quasi-nationality due to the "two China" situation. Don't buy into PRC's bullshit that there's only "one China". This is why there is the "status quo" (both ROC and PRC exists). The only way this status quo will change is with the elimination of "ROC". This means either A) ROC territory is annexed by PRC, or B) ROC transitions into a non-Chinese nation "Taiwan", hence becoming identical to "Singapore". Hope this opens your eyes to the Taiwanese situation. — Nrtm81 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, "reunification with the PRC" is the wrong word (PRC never had jurisdiction over Taiwan). This should be "unification with the Chinese mainland". Any usage of "unification", "reunification" in combination with "People's Republic of China" is wrong (you know that :P). — Nrtm81 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed another problem: "...to determine one's nationality as a Taiwanese person". Taiwanese has never been a nationality. The independence movement is trying to establish "Taiwan" as a nation in name, in effect creating Taiwanese as a nationality by:
  • dissolving the ROC entity (whose official capital is in Nanjing and official territorial boundaries include PRC, Mongolia, parts of Myanmar, Russia, etc)
  • replace the ROC constitution with a Taiwan constitution
  • to define territorial boundaries by disavowing ROC's territorial claims outside its current jurisdiction
Basically to become a fully independent nation seperate from "China" both ROC and PRC. That's the only time "Taiwanese" can be recognized as a nationality. At present, their nationality is "Chinese" but identity is Taiwanese (Similar to Okinawan, Hainanese, Hawai'ian, etc; These are not nationalities but identities within a larger nation. Hawai'ian includes Filipinos, Japanese, Chinese, etc but they are still Hawai'ians) — Nrtm81 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
yeah, Jiang complained about that word too. In short, the definition of "nationality" I'm working from doesn't really require the existence of a....nation (in the common sense of the word). Strangely enough.
But OK that word is misleading. But "identity" is too diffuse, and "ethnic identity" is even worse... if you have a better word, then put it out here so we can discuss using it. :-) Ling.Nut 22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... Taiwan was declared independent in the spring of 1895... and that lasted for 6 months. The first Taiwanese identity was a national one. Second... nation is not the same thing as a "nation state". We have the Sioux Nation or First Nations. Nrtm81, I think you may think I wrote the quote above... I can't help how those people answered the question, nor can I say what "they should have said" and I think that is the problem with your approach. When asked... people will respond the way the people in the example did.

Here's some other quotes to futher muddy the waters of a simple ROC=Taiwanese solution.

"Despite the fact I was born in Hong Kong, I was raised and have lived in Taiwan for 50 years. Who says I'm not Taiwanese?...Taiwan is my home...I'm a Taiwanese person"-Ma Ying Jiu (4/5/07).
"Taiwan would be blessed to have a Mainlander as the nation's president"

-Ma Ying Jiu (4/5/07)

"I said, Taiwan would be blessed if one day ethnic issues could be dropped...it is possible for Taiwan to have a non-Taiwan national as president"'-Ma Ying Jiu (4/5/07)

On ethnicity:

Ethnicity is basically the perception of difference. These perceptions may be of culture, language, territory, kinship and physical appearance and these perceptions have been a feature of the human experience since the first societies formed. Humans living in one place and associating with a particular group of people readily form perceptions of "one" and "other", attributing difference i.e. looks, kinship, descent, where they ought to etc...to the "others". Can Taiwanese be a national identity?...yes. Can it be an ethnic identity? Yes. Can the memory of a common socio-political experience or a "common history" (national history) create a Taiwanese ethnic identity? Yes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maowang (talk • contribs)

  • We're going in circles, 'cause you're saying what I was saying (but have since backed away from). There is a difference b/w nation and nation state, and nationality refers to the former.... BUT I would suggest that this disctinction is lost on the average reader, making "nationality" misleading. --Ling.Nut 01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What we could attempt to do, is use Taiwanese as a broad Ethnicity based on the mushy X,Y and Z factors...could be national...or non national factors...and then treat the Hakka, Hoklo, and Mainlander etc... as sub-ethnic Taiwanese groups. For instance...there is the concept of an "Ethnic American", the locus of ethnic "oneness" coming from the American experience and memory formed by the mutlicultural experience within the state...I can see the Aborigines getting pissed off at being a "sub ethnic group". Maowang 01:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

ehhh, what about Cultural identity? It's not perfect, but it avoids the pitfalls of nationality and ethnic group. --Ling.Nut 02:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think ethnicity is the better term, but it is often misunderstood as "race". Cultural identity may be problematic as there are many "cultures" at play that do not intersect. Maybe a "cultural or ethnic (ethno-cultural) identity focused on the island of Taiwan and/or the lands and territories which have been governed by the Republic of China since 1949."Maowang 02:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's get real! Four points

We have been chewing this bone for a while now and accomplished precisely zero-point-zero nothing, because we are trying very very very hard to get what we want to say, not what the public wants to learn in this definition.

Let's get real.

When Jane and John Doe, who are not close to the debate about Taiwan/ROC/PRC and who are not anthropology majors :-) come to this page, what do they want to learn?

Regardless of how we define ethnic group, they wanna know:

  1. what are the major ethnic groups in Taiwan (remember, they don't know about the whole ROC/PRC pie-throwing contest). They wanna know Hakka/Hoklo/refugees after WWI/Taiwanese aborigines etc.
  2. They certainly wanna know the proportion of each w. respect to total population
  3. certainly the language(s) of each
  4. certainly info about any particular geographic concentration

It is easy to provide this information. However:

  • If we try to modify the definition to satisfy either/both the pro- and anti-independence people, we will fail, because the two views are essentially incompatible and mutually exclusive.
  • If we try to write a dissertation on the definition of identity and nationality and ethnic group, we will fail, because many such dissertations have already been written, and many more will be, and none of them has the answer to end all answers.

Let's give the public that info. Let's give them the four points outlined above. The public deserves it. All else is counterproductive (and may create a perception that it is obstructionist) and raises concerns about editor(s) having personal agenda(s).

  • Let's keep the pro-anti-stuff that argues about "nation" etc. for the identity crisis article — or for ANY other article, for that matter.
  • Let's keep the dissertations on the meaning of identity for the identity article, if such exists — or better yet, just keep it for an actual dissertation instead of a Wikipedia article.

I have said all I want to say here. --Ling.Nut 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm for Ling.nut's original Lede. Let's make stink or get off the pot!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.170.112.44 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Revised Draft of NPOV LEDE

OK:

Taiwanese people may refer to individuals who either claim or are imputed cultural identity in the Republic of China (ROC), or its largest administered territory, the island of Taiwan. At least [number..four? five?] competing (and sometimes overlapping) standards can be used to determine one's cultural identity as a Taiwanese person: [insert list of standards here]. The complexity resulting from competing standards is compounded by a larger dispute regarding the political identity of the ROC itself, and its potential de jure independence or political unification with the People's Republic of China.

The composite category of "Taiwanese people" includes a significant population of at least [number: three? four? five?] constituent ethnic groups: [insert list here].

  • Note "unification" not reunification. Note no appeal to Nationality. Note "Ethnic groups" appealed to only as a subgroup; not as a part of the def of "Taiwanese."
  • [Please do not directly edit the above draft. Suggest a correction or improvement below this post..] Ling.Nut 02:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
(copied from above thread)
I think ethnicity is the better term, but it is often misunderstood as "race". Cultural identity may be problematic as there are many "cultures" at play that do not intersect. Maybe a "cultural or ethnic (ethno-cultural) identity focused on the island of Taiwan and/or the lands and territories which have been governed by the Republic of China since 1949."Maowang 02:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think cultural identity is better for precisely the reason you give. :-) It's no big leap of logic or faith to assume that a person can operate within and identify with more than one culture, but it IS a leap to assign more than one ethnicity to any given individual... which makes "cultural identity" a good blanket term. Ling.Nut 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Check the definitions supplied by the links. Why don't we use "ethno-cultural". That covers the grouping of people as "one" and the types of cultures within the group. My wording above may save space too. Taiwanese may refer to groups of people with an ethno-cultural identity focused on the island of Taiwan and/or the lands and territories which have been governed by the Republic of China since 1949."Maowang 03:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I checked the def in the article, and to me it sounds perfect:
  • "Cultural identity is the (feeling of) identity of a group or culture, or of an individual as far as she/he is influenced by her/his belonging to a group or culture. Cultural identity is similar to and has overlaps with, but is not synonymous with, identity politics. Cultural identity remarks upon: place, gender, race, history, nationality and ethnicity."
  • So why is "cultural identity" perfect?
  1. Its main argument is that it is a feeling of belonging.
  2. Sure, it mentions ethnic groups and nationalities... it provides a whiff or a hint of those ideas, but is not coterminous with any of them. It is compellingly vague in all respects, and yet has points of contact with all the different standards one can employ when defining define "Taiwanese" people". ;-)
  3. It also touches on identity politics, and given the whole DNA/haplotype/blah blah blah controversy, this is serendipitous.
  4. I can come up with more reasons, if you like. I'm on a roll. :-) --Ling.Nut 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Another option may be "Socio-cultural identity", as the building blocks of ethnic identity are imagined from a sense of social and cultural continuity or cultural descent. Go ahead with cultural identity if nobody had a problem with it being too broad as long as we don't attempt to define culture. People tend to paint very broad strokes with "Culture".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.170.120.59 (talk • contribs) Maowang 01:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Who posted this (immediately above)? Ling.Nut 01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Taiwanese people may refer to individuals who either claim or are imputed cultural identity focused on the island of Taiwan and/or the lands and territories which have been governed by the Republic of China since 1949.

What about this? The above seems to follow the wiki naming conventions for treating the name Taiwan with a preference for geographic location.Maowang 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • me likes. Ling.Nut 02:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Who's this girl? She looks pretty but I have to say putting her there representating Taiwanese people is out of place. Can't we just have a picture of some elementary school kids or people in the streets or in a taoist temple or something? There's nothing definingly Taiwanese in that girl and at worst it looks like some snapshot from a teen drama. Blueshirts 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blueshirts, either you are a Taiwanese who supports the mainland, or are a Mainland Chinese who is pretending to be Taiwanese. I think the previous picture was much better. It may be a surprise to you, but there are actually Taiwanese girls who look that attractive that walk the streets of Taiwan!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.192.30 (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

True, true. Can you find a suitable replacement? =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Schoolkids would be OK if you can see their faces. The "people in a street" idea... I dunno, the idea of a "people" article with a photo of people who are basically tiny dots in a traffic jam doesn't appeal to me :-). Although it would be OK if you had both, with the close-up photo first. --Ling.Nut 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • [1] a photo of some Taiwanese... look like.. students? .. unfortunately (?) including Jimbo :-) Ling.Nut 03:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! It looks like the Feng Chia University student group for Applied Math.Maowang 03:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Some photos; one with computers looks OK: here. --Ling.Nut 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


I think that we need to put the picture of "pretty girl" back on, as well as add various pictures of seniors and children and aboriginese people in order to provide all the demographies of the Taiwanese people. <unsigned>

Lol, now that's a classic taiwanese youth culture. All skinny dudes with glasses. Blueshirts 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen everyone, I really think the Taiwanese youth in this picture are not exactly the most attractive people on the island. The youth in the picture are from the early 90s!!! This in year 2007!!! PLEASE REPLACE OR REMOVE THIS OUTDATED PICTURE!!!! 12:07 PM, 19 Oct. 2007(TaipeiTimes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaipeiTimes (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] changing the lede; it won't be perfect -- don't panic!!!

I'm changing the lede. It will need further work. DON'T PANIC. We can patch any holes, discuss any issues, etc etc etc. :-)! --Ling.Nut 17:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not bad... a move...moves are good. One possible problem may be "four ethnic groups". Taiwanese could really fit the model of an ethnic group and the "Big Four" are really the product of colonial policy rather than actual claimed identities. Each of those four have been mixing laterally etc... As for the list... the prior list was the most congurent with concepts of claimed and assigned identities. Maowang 00:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • A person who holds Republic of China citizenship and/or born in Taiwan.
  • A person who was born within the territories held by the ROC after 1949.
  • A resident of the island of Taiwan.
  • A person who identifies him/herself as a Taiwanese.
  • A person who is identified by others as a Taiwanese.

Maowang 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree this info is worth keeping, but two thoughts:
  1. In general, bulleted lists are a no-no. I've seen it on many GA reviews, and an FA reviewer recently mentioned the same thing about the bulleted lists on Taiwanese aborigines.
  2. I was wondering, is this stuff top-level info that belongs in the lede, or it it rather details that should be merged into the sections of the article's body?
--Ling.Nut 02:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That might eliminate conflict that can be replaced with a discussion. Maybe explained in a History of Taiwanese Identity or something.Maowang 03:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I included three standards.. nationalist etc. Should there be 3 or 4?
Now it's time to work on the body. :-) Don't hate me, but the verb that's uppermost in my mind is "trim."
Also need to make section headings that precisely echo the structure of the lede... three standards, 4 ethnic groups... other contributors can chime in here (Hello Nrt8m1!)
I hear you and Jiang saying Hakka etc. are not ethnic groups; I hear you saying "Taiwanese people" is one... I must be dim-witted 'cause my def of ethnic groups would definitely include Hakka Hoklo etc. Feel free to ask me to stand in a corner. :-P
Ling.Nut 11:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a few sentences and citations to make room to discuss the "four ethnic groups" without any POV of their "authenticity" or "falsehood"Maowang 01:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Four ethnic groups"

I have not seen the term "ethnicity" 民族 being used to describe the four groups outside of the independence movement. If this is the case, then we can't use the term without attribution.--Jiang 02:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple sources that discuss this issue. They acknowledge the construction of the term, but also make the case that "four great ethnic groups" has been largely accepted "by the public, including the KMT and the CNP, and has overshadowed the old Mainlander-Taiwanese dichotomy". (Hsiao 2004:105). The term is noted as being based on "Strategic Essentialism" that has seen resonance with the public and therefore is valid in that sense. Maowang 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there something in Chinese or actual quotations coming from politicians? It is not the classification into four groups that is in dispute, but using the term "ethnic" (族) to refer to them. The Taiwan Yearbook reserves the word "ethnic" to the Han-aboriginal dichotomy. --Jiang 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

<insert grumbling here> Let's just call them social groups and be done with it... Ling.Nut 03:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


I have the term "四大族群" as becoming the "dominant frame of reference for dealing with ethnic and nationalist issues". The author is from Academia Sinica and his writing is highly critical of all political angles...very apolitical. Maowang 04:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jiang, I know that the Chinese translation of almost every word is a political battleground, but in English the term we would unquestionably use is "ethnic group." Can we keep that terminology and note that the term is subject to debate? [In fact, if several terms in the article are debatable, that might warrant a separate section on the debatable nature of the terms.] I would like to move forward. I would also like to get rid of that "neutrality disputed" tag. In short, I would like to see a respectable article here. Ling.Nut 11:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I have quibbled about this in the past, I think the paragraph makes it clear that the terminology is a construction, but regardless, that construction, no matter why it was coined, is found to be meaningful in Taiwan. I know I hear it regularly on T.V. Personally, I disagree with the construction as...a construction that does not depict the complexity of the Taiwanese experience, but it seems to reflect the way many Taiwanese imagine their society, despite the flaws. Let's move on. Maowang 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I added John Copper to the list of refs regarding Ethnic Groups. Copper often relies on information he gets from the Taiwan Yearbook, but he is a trusted source, some critics might call him "pro-blue". I think this source might add balance.Maowang 01:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That truly and deplorably ugly "disputed neutrality" tag!

Hey can we get rid of that cursed tag?! It is hideous. This article is a work in progress, and we are all working to make it NPOV. Let's have faith in each other's good faith.. <did that make sense?> Get rid of the term "ethnic groups" in the lede if it makes it more digestible. As for other sections... Their Day Will Come! Judgment Draweth Nigh! Ling.Nut 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Must make a concrete, specific, point-by-point case for NPOV tag

Please note that the act of inserting the NPOV tag itself is NPOV. It is an assertion of a POV.

This is only acceptable if editors take the time to raise specific points which can be addressed. This is perfectly acceptable; compromises can be worked out here on Talk. I will remove the NPOV tag unless someone takes the time to raise specific points which can be addressed in a constructive manner. Ling.Nut 15:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm this article has improved a lot! There are a lot of references (which is good), but I think there should be more pictures added for this article to meet the GA criteria.--Jerrypp772000 00:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shhhhhh!

Shhh! Don't tell anybody, but this page has become quite stable.Maowang 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

At the top of the page it say "the people governed by the Republic of China," but I think that's not what this article's about. Taiwanese people aren't always governed by the ROC. I think it should say something like "the people of Taiwan." Feel free to change it back if anyone thinks otherwise.--Jerry 16:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think for a while someone was having a big problem with it, so to make nice it was in the prior form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.140.7.29 (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The early Fujian and Hakka peoples

I totally acknowledge the mixing between Hoklo, Hakka, and pingpu peoples. I am also aware that Hoklo came from two cities Zhangzhou and Quanzhou. I also believe some single Chinese came from Chaozhou to Taiwan and mixed with others, because there is a city in Pingtung County that has the same name. Teochiu and Hoklo are very similar. I bring this up because I know many Taiwanese who claim to have an ancestor from Guangdong, and that ancestor is not a Hakka. I believe that it is highly possible that any Teochiu rapidly assimilated with Hoklo speakers. Does anyone know?

User:Dlc_73 13:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions of Taiwanese

The section "Definitions of Taiwanese" doesn't actually contain any definitions of "Taiwanese". Instead it contains a two paragraph essay on the meaning of "group identity". No similar section is provided in the articles for "Japanese people", "Chinese people" or "American people" (I didn't check any other groups of people). The essay seems not quite neutral, though it has citations.

  1. If this section is to remain, title needs changing.
  2. Does this section belong in this article, or does it belong in some style or policy manual describing how Wikipedia should define groups like "Taiwanese people"?
  3. If this section remains, it needs to be given context to say why it belongs here.
  4. If this section remains, it should be considered in the interest of NPOV what other groups of people should have a similar section in their articles.
  5. If his section remains, it needs a good thinking through as to whether it is NPOV or needs some clarifications.

Readin 04:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Era vs Kuomintang Era

The description of the Japanese era starts with "In the face of the Japanese colonial hierarchy, the people of Taiwan were faced with the unequal binary relationship between colonizer and colonized. This duality between 'one' and 'other'...". This seems very biased against the Japanese era, especially when compared to description given for the Kuomintang era which also had an unequal relationship which many would consider a colonizer-colonized relationship. The wording of the Japanese era should be toned down.Readin 04:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Having read through a pile of history books, i can tell you that the current wording is in many ways very sugar-coated. I'm not gonna argue, if you have an emotional stake. The article is referenced to the hilt. the statement is echoed throughtout tons of books etc. Thanks for the comment! --Ling.Nut 04:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if the reference says exactly what the article says, the statement is still more opinion than fact. Examples of what created this unequal relationship would be better. If the description of the Japanese era is "sugar-coated", as you say, and the description of the Kuomintang era is not, then surely the Japanese era must have been far worse than the Kuomintang era. But the facts provided in the article do not provide any reason to believe this to be true. The statement might as well have read, "The Japanese took over and were really really mean and nasty." Maybe they were, but use the facts to show it rather than just stating the opinion. From what I've heard and read, the Japanese era wasn't worse than the Kuomintang era for most people, although it was pretty bad for the aborigines. If I'm wrong, the current wording in the article does nothing to show me wrong. It just states an opinion that I've have reason to disagree with.Readin 04:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are books that tells about the KMT era having an unequal relationship.--Jerry 12:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US and Canadian population in Taiwan

I had a look at the sources cited to support the figures of US and Canadian migrants in Taiwan and noted that the sources don't acutally support the figures. The Chinese headings say "the current population of Taiwanese migrants in the US (or Canada, as the case may be), 2000", but not the other way around as the article seems to suggest.

I think the figures should be removed as the sources cited are incorrect.--Pyl (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are not suppose to be the US and Canadian migrants in Taiwan. Foreign migrants in Taiwan would be listed under the Taiwanese people living in Taiwan. The numbers are not incorrect.--Jerrch 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You are right. I apologise for the mistake.--Pyl (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)