Talk:Taiwanese people/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 A note to all contributors: 2 Section Break 3 Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 4 Taiwanese are not Chinese 5 Reasons why Taiwanese are Chinese 5.1 Identity 5.2 Genetics 6 Taiwanese are Taiwanese 7 This whole page sucks 8 Points of POV-pushing present in the anon's version 9 Cleanup 10 Sources 11 Neutrality 12 Applying Logic to infer that Taiwanese/Minnan peoples are not Han 13 New Taiwanese 14 standardized refs using templates 15 Most of Taiwanese are not Han Chinese, but Han Taiwanese 16 Moved the "Maowang" page 17 "heavy grammatical influence"

A note to all contributors:

Due to the controversial nature of this subject I would like to ask every contributor to discuss changes before posting. I would also ask each contributor to include reliable sources for each edit that can be verified. Materials published by academic institutions, research centers, think tanks and academic journals are preferred.

Please be mindful of your responsibilities to the integrity of this page and the integrity of Wikipedia by adhering to the established NPOV policy, despite how much you wish for others to understand your point of view.

If you have a point of view that you feel needs to be discussed in detail, I would encourage you to discuss it here in the "discussion" page, or on a variety of blogs or on-line forums. I would encourage you to start your own forum or blog (www.blogspot.org), where you can freely express yourself without Wikipedia's constrictive guidelines. If you would simply like to join a discussion forum www.forumosa.org may be a good place to start. Maowang 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maowang, I think we are getting way too sensitive about Taiwan to the point of lunacy and stalemate! Nobody disputes that ROC citizens are generally called Taiwanese. When we say Chinese, everyone thinks of China (PRC). This article is too long and most of the text should actually be moved to Taiwan's identity crisis. I genuinely believe my edit is more informational than the current version. When we talk about Taiwanese we mean ROC citizens, 99% live on Taiwan island, around 1% or even less live outside the island. So we can pretty much say they are all Taiwanese. I wonder whether or not you read the change I made to the intro text before reverting it. Please point out what is POV about it. — Nrtm81 22:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, let me add, the "mainlander" group also consider themselves Taiwanese (no political connotations). So there's nothing controversial or POV about it. All four groups are proud of ROC (though not necessarily the KMT regime) and to be Taiwanese. But whether they view themselves in political terms of Taiwanese or Chinese is another topic (Taiwan's identity crisis). — Nrtm81 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

71.106.157.175 19:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all... Your intro used POV language "Either/or" wich fails to encompass the wider concept of ethnic and national identities. You are using only YOUR definition of what Taiwanese are i.e. When we talk about Taiwanese we mean ROC citizens. Who are "We"? Further, your post suggests that there are two Republic of Chinas, a free one and an unfree one. Or that there is a free part...define free as...? Your post fails to encompass the people who consider themselves Taiwanese who do not support the ROC or live in the ROC.

The current definition is more accessable to every point of view. The fact we are even discussing this in the "Discussion" page is reason enough to demand discussion and references for further work. The amount of attention this page attracts is reason enough for it to remain. Maowang 00:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, your definition could even be seen as supporting an authentic/falsehood dichotomy of identity, which can be shown to be politically manufactured and partial. It is exclusive and neglects mixed marriages, hybridism and collective consiousness. You have some people who are American born, second or third generation, but when confronted with the question, "What are you?", they respond, "Taiwanese" neither an ROC citizen, nor living on Taiwan. Then there are the foreign residents who simply identify with Taiwan as home and call themselves Taiwanese. Your solution creates more problems than it solves. Maowang 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

omg Maowang, have you read anything about ROC and Taiwan at all? Let me explain simply in case you didn't know about the ROC situation:

• ROC claims to be the government of China (PRC territories plus Mongolia and other territories now part of Russia, India, Pakistan, Japan). Therefore it is a rival China government to the PRC.
• In fact, the ROC is a government-in-exile because it's true capital is in Nanjing. Taiwan was never part of ROC until Japan was defeated and ROC took over control of the island from Japan.
• Free Area of the Republic of China is the designated area ruled by the ROC government. Hence all territories governed by the PRC is "not free" (i.e. yet to be liberated from the communists). It does not mean two ROC... Please read the articles instead of making unfounded accusations.
• ROC is the China government, there are two provincial governments under the ROC government (Taiwan government and Fujian government)
• When I use the term "We" I mean everyone. Even in China (PRC) they call ROC people "Taiwanese" (not using political connotations). This is a commonly used term to refer to the people governed by ROC.
• People born to ROC citizens (after 1949) but are not ROC citizens, or are third generation descendants, etc can and tend to identify themselves as Taiwanese. I think only 10% of ROC citizens view themselves as only Chinese while the majority view themselves as either Taiwanese or "Chinese AND Taiwanese". However, this topic should be dealt with in Taiwan's identity crisis.

We are only discussing this because you raised the issue here first after objecting to my edit. I still don't see any valid reasons for your reverts. I beg of you not to politicize this matter. The main point is to start the article from the general perspective, which is everyone refers to ROC citizens as Taiwanese. Then we go into detail to explain that it does not mean Taiwan is a nation but rather the Chinese Civil War created the problem of TWO CHINA governments and that since 99.5% of ROC territory is Taiwan island alone, we (everybody) tends to use the term Taiwanese to avoid the confusion of Chinese (PRC). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nrtm81 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

If this article is going to be strictly about "Taiwanese" as defined by the CIA World Factbook, then this article would change significantly. According to CIA, only Hoklo and Hakka are Taiwanese (84% of the population), while Mainland Chinese (14%) and Indigenous (2%) are not Taiwanese but a seperate group from Taiwanese. I think this version would cause much more problems at Wikipedia since the other two groups would pull out the discrimination card. — Nrtm81 06:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a 'who's knows more' battle. The problem with your chosen narrative is that is is just that, a selected reading, which makes it POV. I suggest reading Hayden White's material on Historicizaton and Paul Cohen's writing on History as Event, Experience and Myth. I would encourage you to check out the sources I posted to the pottom of the article.

The current wording allows for Chinese Nationalists, both PRC and ROC, to allow for equal interpretation as well as allowing Taiwanese Nationalists space for their own interpretation. The current wording is the most basic and least POV thus far to encompass the full range of identity formation and othering. These definitions encompass nationalized and non-nationalized formulations of Taiwanese. This is obviously important to many people as it it rated B on the TaiwanWiki project. If you would like me to produce more sources, I would be happy to help you. Your discussion leads me to believe your opinion would be better suited for a Chinese Nationalism page or Chinese Nationalist identity page. Your current general formulation has been largely unaccepted by non-nationalized research by social theorists and academics for almost 20 years. See Bennedict Anderson, Franz Fanon, Stevan Harrell, Edward Said and Homi K. Bhabha to name few. Please read some of the sources before you continue.Maowang 07:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maowang... 你腦子有問題嗎? lolz j/k. You already violated Good Faith policy and strayed off topic by trying to analyze people as if you were Frasier Crane. Why don't you just stick to the concern about the content instead of accusing people of something political. Maybe you're the one obsessed with politics? FYI, I've been accused of being Taiwan independence supporter, a communist, and even before your accustion, a KMT/ROC nationalist. The full spectrum. I've yet to be accused of Hanjian though and I think it's gonna come soon since I just started created articles on Shinto shrines in Taiwan. ;)

OK, your majesty. You win :) This article is all yours to edit however well you please. Since you think I'm Chinese Nationalist and therefore POV, I have no right to edit this article lol. Maowang wansui! — Nrtm81 14:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if you think I was accusing anyone of any one belief. I am discussing "nationalism" in its most benign and academic sense, so please read carefully. I am not suggesting anyone supports any version of nationalism, but rather that the attempted changes relied on a particular "nationalist narrative" that produced problems for the NPOV requirements of the page. I would suggest you drop the accusation of a "brain problem" as it is not helpful, and violates the rules of Wikipedia. Please discontinue the insults and aggressive tone. If you feel you would like a mediator, Wikipedia offers such a service.Maowang 14:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes boss :P — Nrtm81 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Knock knock –

Hey, folks, let's play nice. (And don't say "He started it!" "No you did!") ;-)

Somewhere in the universe there exists a neutral wording that is at least marginally tolerable to all parties involved here. I'm sure it can be found through (possibly prolonged) discussion etc. I happen to respect both of you, and this bickering is counterproductive! Discuss. Negotiate. Adapt. :-)

Later, --Ling.Nut 19:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, the problem here is how to introduce "Taiwanese people" to the world. I believe everyone relates ROC citizens to Taiwan and hence Taiwanese. As such it would be much more informational to introduce the reader to this fact by saying Taiwanese refers to 23 million people governed by ROC and Taiwan island just happens to make up 99.5% percent of the "Free Area of the ROC", and 99% of ROC population live on Taiwan island. Of course this needs to be further clarified in the main text that Taiwanese used to refer only to the Hoklo, but gradually encompassed the Hakka and these days all four groups.

Most of the text here is not necessary and should be moved to Taiwan's identity crisis, such as "Stalinist model", "New Taiwanese", "KMT brainwashing about being Chinese", "Japanese brainwashing to assimilate Taiwanese", "mixed marriages", etc. Phew! If Maowang would permit me to make changes as I intend first then reword or make changes he feels would be more neutral, that'd be fine. But because we're stuck here, nothing's gonna change. — Nrtm81 23:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Everyone involved with Taiwan-related articles knows — and knows very well — that the issue of Taiwanese identity is a huge hot potato, subject to extremist views (I'm not accusing either you or Maowang of extremist views; just pointing out that they exist and are frequently articulated), lots of tension, and extremes of both over-simplification and over-analysis. There's no way we can expect to hash things out quickly! :-)

The only way forward, I think, is to hash things out on the talk page, working together as a group. It's the Wikipedia way.

I have always favored putting the controversial & inconclusive nature of the issue right up in the WP:LEDE .. but that still leaves tons of issues to be resolved..

...and this article does need some extremely serious cleanup, completely unrelated to the debate at hand.

.. let's work together on it... --Ling.Nut 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nrtm81, I understand your point of view, but if your agenda is to introduce people of the ROC in a way you feel they should be represented, then maybe "Taiwanese People" is not the right section. Maybe a People of the ROC would be a better fit. Your definition is only relying on the national view point. People have many identities, which are fluid and changing. If a person tells me they are a Taiwanese, they may tell another they are an American. How many Americans say, "I'm Irish and German?" or I'm a "Japanese-American" or under a different circumstance, "I'm Japanese" or while visiting Japan..."I'm American". Then there's the ugly side of relying on fixed rigid classifications of ethnic identity. There are many U.S. Citizens who think "The Mexicans" should go home and quit taking "our" jobs. Many of those "Mexicans" are U.S. citizens, but in the eyes of a biggot "American" means "White". Then there's the case of the riots in France. France prohibits public acknowledgement of ethnic identities, in favor of a French national identity. The French model clearly overlooked the stigma of the colonial experience and by not acknowledging differing opinions of ethnic identity combined with the reality of a public attitude that somehow N. Africans are not "true" French, the situation boiled over. The narrow view of identity actually fuels a "true/false" dualism, which is the root of racism and ethnic conflict. Many children born in S. Korea to soldier fathers and Korean mothers are not accepted as "true" Koreans under the narrow view, despite their own feelings of oneness. On the flip side, my colleague in Taiwan, seems to preface every sentece with "We Chinese". I think Stephane Corcuff's Memories of the Future would be a good book for you.

All of the models discussed on this page encompass a different understanding of identity and how a person who says, "I am Taiwanese" might explain their identity and how people who are not Taiwanese might differentiate them. The Stalinist model, which has nothing to do with Josef Stalin and needs to be fixed, is what China uses to explain the identity of Taiwanese. This has everything to do with this page. New Taiwanese has everything to do with expressing identity. Terms like "Free China" are not appropriate. Why don't you explain how you would make changes and why they are not POV. List sources and back up claims. I am purely coming from an understanding of identity as an expression of "oneness" and other. I'm sorry, but based on my study and understanding of identity formation, the sources I have provided and your own formulation, your solution is not adequate to best represent this page. Further, your attitude had not been appropriate and makes cooperation difficult. I am willing to cooperate with anyone, but I will not sustain taunts and abuse. I would like to work on a clean-up in the near future after I finish prepping another page for review. The reason I called for the discussion here is because this is such a controversial topic and we need to provide sources. Maowang 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just follow Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia's example, and make this page just list what a "Taiwanese" can mean and link to Taiwan's identity crisis where most of the text dealing with identity can be fully explored. — Nrtm81 05:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I really need to work on a paper... so must quit chatting for tonight.. but I strongly feel that the fact that there are different ways of looking at identity (as you pointed out) is precisely what needs to go into the WP:LEDE ... sans name-calling etc., those ways need to be articulated. Your average Jane or Joe off the street needs to know that from the first or second sentence....to accomplish that, those views must be hammered out here on Talk... Good night! :-) --Ling.Nut 01:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest incorporating something into the lead about the many forms of Taiwanese identity, National, cultural and ethnic, and there could be a section devoted to a nationalist view of Taiwanese identity.See the arguments below: That's what we are trying to avoid.Maowang 02:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So let's see if I understand you... you would say something like "there are different ways of thinking of identity.. there's national identity (then present Nrtm81's ideas) and a cultural/ethnic view (then present yours).. then explain them in separate sections? That sounds like a winner to me... Nrtm81? -- Ling.Nut 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This page really isn't about "Identity Crisis", (is there a crisis?) as it only explains the different types of Taiwanese identities people assert or are asserted for them by a polity when the term Taiwanese is used. The classifications do not have to be in conflict. I say stick with it and back up our information with references. If someone says "X is/am a Taiwanese", what might that mean? Some people may be conflicted about it, but that is not a discussion forthis page.Maowang 08:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Four things are extremely clear to me:

1. Both this page and Taiwan's identity crisis need a lot of work! :-)
2. Very unfortunately, there is probably some pverlap between the two... The two definitely need to be compared side-by-side and edited carefully.
3. All of the above will require a lot of discussion. Sorry. I know it's a pain in the neck. :-)
4. I want to help!!!! But personally, if I don't finish my papers and study for prelims, I may be causing myself problems. So.....

Ling.Nut 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The "identity analysis" should be moved to Taiwan's identity crisis. The world views ROC as Taiwan and all its people as Taiwanese. That was the point I was trying to make in the introduction text. In the intro text, I should've mentioned that the term has other definitions and then explain that in the main text which is:

• Taiwanese (original) = Hoklo and their language
• Taiwanese (natives) = Hoklo & Hakka
• Taiwanese (modern) = Hoklo, Hakka, Mainlander (New Taiwanese), Indigenous

The history of each ethnic group should be expanded in the articles Hoklo people, Hakka, Mainlander under a subheading of ===Taiwan=== with a concise overview of each ethnic group's history on this page. The genetic studies should be breifly mentioned but mainly dealt with in Taiwan's identity crisis since it's a point of contention against the "Han Chinese" identity assigned to all three groups by the ROC government. That's the claim that 88% of the 16 million 本省人 population has aborigine blood and therefore not Han Chinese, though to me it seems just a politically motivated attempt to shift the identity away from China and towards Austronesian identity. — Nrtm81 23:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this page offers a very good opportunity to become a very interesting page. I can imagine the following.

Taiwanese as a national identiy, with sub-groups of local and provincial. This would involve current ROC constructions and contemporary social science... Bennedict Anderson and his Imagined Communities would fit this well.

Explain the four ethnic groups for what they are. Pros- It is probably what most people people are looking for. Con-Taiwan's national and subnational identities are very diverse and could be discussed in the Identity Conflict page. The four ethnic groups relies on a mythologized political construction as each group has been mixing laterally for 400 years. It can be seen as discriminative and politically motivated and even colonialist. This is the section that people with a strong Taiwanese National identity will have the most trouble with if done without caveats.

Cultural Identity: including ideas of Bentuhua Cultural Nationalism etc...

Pros-This would cover the dialectic between nation and culture and the behaviors/memories that make Taiwanese "Knowable" as a cultureal identity. This would also allow discussion for "Mainlanders" who are becoming "Taiwanese" as studied in Corcuff's book and the generations of "Mainlanders" who are mixed with others. This section would also cover people with a Taiwanese national identity and a Chinese cultural identity...or the other way around. Cons-It is difficult to discuss culture it sould be plural and is closely tied to the immagined community.

Ethnic Identity: use Charles Keyes and Geertz. This is colsely related to the above, but could be viewed differently by individuals who feel Taiwanese culture is/or isn't Chinese culture and have a different understanding of Ethnicity.

New Taiwanese: Alternative concepts or Taiwaneseness. This marks a new discourse in being Taiwanese and meshes very well with the ideals of the ROC as "a multi-cultural, multi-ethic nation state". This gives a great chance to explore the postmodernist look at Taiwanese identity, which could threaten the nationalist view of culture and identity.

The genetic studies should be breifly mentioned but mainly dealt with in Taiwan's identity crisis since it's a point of contention against the "Han Chinese" identity assigned to all three groups by the ROC government. That's the claim that 88% of the 16 million 本省人 population has aborigine blood and therefore not Han Chinese, though to me it seems just a politically motivated attempt to shift the identity away from China and towards Austronesian identity. This, you are absolutely correct, it is likely a fairly accurate estimate, but irrelevent and shortsighted, except how it was used politically by those who opposed the strong centralized culture of the KMT government. Identities are quite benign until politicized (either way). At the same time the "four ethnic groups were levereged to move Taiwanese identiy closer to China. Immagined Communities.Since I forgot to sign, I'll add that conversely the flaw to the argument of moving to or from a Chinese or non-Chinese identity resides in the presumtion of fixed authentic and false definitions of Chineseness and who is defining "motion" to or from and whose definition of Chinese. See: the Crossley/Brown/Ebry debate and Duara's formulation of the problem of Chinese Identity... Dru Gladney has a really great study about the "Muslim" problem in China and Stevan Harrell makes some wonderful observations in Ways of Being Ethnic in Southwest China and his essay The Prmi Problem in Negotiating Ethnicities. I am hoping this page can negotiate these problems with compassion because these identities mean a lot to many people and people may not like being told who and what they are. "How dare you tell ME what I am". Is a common problem faced by anthropologists while trying to understand human relationships and cultural shift. Maowang 03:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

... which is why the page shouldn't be too simplistic... but still it can

1. Say the problem is complex and briefly mention the dangers of oversimplification
2. discuss national vs. cultural identities
3. Paint with a broad brush some very broad defs. (four groups etc.)
4. Wrap it up. Have a beer.

Ling.Nut 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You got that right! What's the beer where you're at? As much as I like Taiwan beer, I have a hankering for a solid IPA. We have Carlsberg, Corona, Heinekin, Tiger Beer and San Miguel. They just are all too similar. Taiwan Beer being the best for all occasions... but the Gold Label tastes like Budweiser Yuk! I digress... :)Maowang 03:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps ironically, I was in Taipei the first time I tasted (and developed a taste for) my favorite beer — Boddingtons. I can deal with Guiness too.
• But I love Taiwan beer.
• Serously.. this article is gonna be the Reader's Digest version of this topic! Cite the dangers of oversimplification at the very top of the page; hit the highlights of this issue; move on. 'Nuff said. Ling.Nut 04:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Jiang, I agree the "4 ethnic groups" is a bogus concept with many pitfalls and problems. It is also official rhetoric of the ROC. I am not sure "social groups" is the correct term either. Either way it smacks of colonialist definitions and acts an artificial political barrier that has been exploited for political advantage by all parties in Taiwan and encourages "racist" primordialist ideas of the dualism between authentic vs. false. You can see from the debate above we are trying to figure out how to proceed with this page and have some very divergent views. We would welcome your input and expertise. I know you have been around Wikipedia for many years and may offer some insight.Maowang 01:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite well-read on this subject.

can we agree to remove the word "ethnic" as no one here seems to support it? The government isn't calling them "ethnic". (At least I haven't seen this reference on govt publications, contrary to some other places) This page states, "Together, these various Han groups form the largest ethnic group in Taiwan, making up roughly 98 percent of the population." implying otherwise.

I don't see any concrete proposals above. Can someone fill me in? I think missing from this article is any discussion of changing self-identies in the past 20 yrs arising from political factors. The "Self Identification" section completely ignores this while the "New Taiwanese" section only touches on it. --Jiang 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We are at loggerheads over the Taiwanese as a fixed, national/political identity and the more ambiguous self-identity. I think GIO rhetoric still calls Taiwan a multicultural society of four ethnic groups, but Hsiau A-Chin rips that apart by demonstrating how multiculturalism includes space for all cultures and hybridism, showing the current 4 ethnic groups an artificial political/colonial formula. Look on Ling.Nut'Talk page for one version. I think the "Disputed" section provides much of the theory which allows for ambiguity, but it may be less accessable to the layperson. Confining Taiwanese identity to concepts of the ROC would be too restrictive. Let me check out what the GIO says for the 'official" position. Thanks for your input.Maowang 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears the GIO has entered a new era and the four ethnic groups have been replaced with Han majority and 60 ethnic minorities. What that means in ambiguous, whether in reference to the 56 "minzu" of China or including modern concepts of hybridity, the new official terminology demands a new writing of this page. Huh! When did they do that? Times, they are a changin'Maowang 03:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The same page also mentions Mongolians and Tibetans. I would assume the 2% would include all non-Han people (Caucasians?) but have no idea how they came up with 60 (are the aboriginal tribes counted separately?). I believe the notion of zhonghua minzu (formerly?) taught in schools in Taiwan names 5 groups - Han, Manchu, Mongol, Tibetan, and Hui. The GIO text I linked to may not have been written by the current administration. It took them a couple years to clean out references to the mainland in editions of the Republic of China Yearbook (renamed Taiwan Yearbook in 2003) and they left what they did not find objectionable in place. I can look up older versions in my school's library to see if this is the case.--Jiang

Chinese Wikipedia uses 族群 (Ethnic group) to describe the four peoples. It has nothing to do with race. It is used only to identify those who speak Hokkien or Hakka, and to label newer arrivals from China as Mainlander, while labeling the remainder as aborigine. The percentage does not count any foreigners. I don't think there is any data to backup the claim of 70%, 15%, 13%, 2%. It's even more difficult because of intermarriage between all four groups. As for "Taiwanese", it's a valid non-political identity such as "Hong Konger" in that they share the same island. It's completely different in political terms since it means nationality (ongoing process).

Check User:Ling.Nut/Taiwanese people/1, I was trying to make the article more relevant and informational. From a reader's perspective, I don't want overly complicated identity analysis. Just want to know what does Taiwanese mean, who is Taiwanese and why is it a problem. — Nrtm81 10:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But what we are dealing with are neither ethnicities nor nationalities. The term is inappropriate, or in the very least, subject to dispute.

"Taiwanese" cannot be treated as an identity the same way as "Hong Konger" because the KMT government repeated stressed provincial identities: until the mid-1990s, all passports, ID cards, military certificates, and other important documents noted a person's "本籍" or ancestral home (province+county). People at that time (esp mainlanders) identified with their province of ancestry and not as "taiwanren". This is not the same for Hong Kong where the overwhelming majority of people have ancestral homes outside of Hong Kong.--Jiang 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did Hoklo and Hakka came from? They weren't living in Taiwan from the beginning. Their ancestors migrated from Southern Fujian and Canton to Taiwan some 400 years ago. 台灣人 is no different than 香港人,湖南人,東北人. It just means the area they're from and were raised. The only people who don't say they're Hong Konger or Taiwanese are those who migrated to Hong Kong and Taiwan but were not born or raised there. — Nrtm81 08:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese people answer the question ni shi nali ren? on the basis of provincial ancestry (three generations living in one place), not simply where they are living at the present moment. There is no question that bengshengren self-identify and are identified as Taiwanese, but prior to the mid-1990s, there was also no question that waishengren did not self-identify and were not identified as Taiwanese.--Jiang 13:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Jiang, I've got a friend in the GIO, I'll ask where I can find the info. The article I saw was from 2004. Nrtm81, I think the problem may be that the answer to "what does Taiwanese mean" is a complicated issue. Identity is never "non-political". Anytime we assert any of our chosen identities, we make a political choice. Why don't you keep trying to define the Official ROC position, it seems that's what you are trying to explain. This should include the histories and descriptions of the ethnic groups because they are mainly from a political construction. I can pick up the caveats. Then the Self-Identity and New Taiwanese etc... can be below. The new GIO stance throws a spanner in the works. The Immagined Community theory is the best one to support the "Nationality" claim, leaving it more open...that's why I put it in the article. Bennedict Anderson's formulation has withstood nearly three decades of scruitiny and has only been improved upon. That acts as a security blanket to protect the section from less scientific, more radical POV. The theory I threw in the beginnig "Disputed" section basically outs all the problems right off that the article may be accused of otherwise, so the topic can be discussed without the POV issues. Maybe it could be refined. and cut into sections, but it serves a valuable purpose.Maowang 13:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

GIO says 漢族 98% 原住民 2%. Only two ethnic groups in Taiwan. First 漢族 arrived to Taiwan from Southern Fujian and Canton. Second influx of 漢族 came with KMT to Taiwan. I think to even write about this will cause chaos since I wrote that in the demographics before and someone already objected and said it's Chinese propaganda. Insisting that 漢族 only refers to KMT and Chinese refugees they brought to Taiwan. Insisting that although Hoklo and Hakka had ancestors from Chinese mainland, they are no longer Chinese since there's already 400 years intermixing with aborigines. Whoever put that photo of the Taiwan girl was probably trying to make the point that Taiwanese don't look like typical Chinese, hence not Chinese. — Nrtm81 08:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference it and the material stays. It doesn't matter if a lunatic wants to come here and say otherwise. I doubt there are scholarly sources backing those other claims. If there are, then reference those too. That's what NPOV is about. --Jiang 13:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia specifically uses "ethnic group" 台灣四大族群. It doesn't mean different races, but different languages, with an added 外省人 to describe the old farts who arrived after 1945. Their descendants born in Taiwan are just as 台灣人 as anyone else in Taiwan, just are 混血兒 (mixed with Viet, Thai, Malay, Indonesian, Indian, White, Black, etc). So long as they were born and raised in ROC or one parent is legal ROC citizen, etc then that child is also a Taiwanese. The foreigner parent however, is not Taiwanese. He/she can be if become naturalized citizen though. (Though technically, Chinese, since ROC is still "China) — Nrtm81 08:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

族 means ethnicity or nationality, which do not objectively apply. The status of Taiwan-born waishengren is not clear-cut as you make it to be. The claim that they are "台灣人" runs counter to government-imposed identities up to about a decade ago and in some instances (based on anecdotal evidence) self-identities into the present day. --Jiang 13:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Jiang, many ROC people though do say they are Taiwanese, no political intensions. Just saying they view Taiwan island as their home (since they were born, raised, and live most of their life there). Which is why I made the comparision with other usages like 香港人，東北人，海南人. It gets complicated cuz we're trying to make a solid definition of Taiwanese which just gets messy. — Nrtm81 18:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I must be the "lunatic" with all the sources that question the use of "Chinese" as anything more that an "imagined community". Chinese is a nationalized term with no real parameters, but rather two governments that choose to create their own definitions of what "Chinese" means. Both create problems and are inconsistent with contemporary society. A political construction. I have good sources. If you'd like to use it as anything beyond a political term, you'll run into locic problems. Chinese can be entered and exited. Whether it has been entered or exited on Taiwan is a matter of personal choice for individuals on Taiwan. See Melissa Brown's work on the subject. Stephane Corcudd has a very good study of the "Mainlander" situation as a changing identity from Chinese to Taiwanese as the second, third and even fourth generations mix into Taiwan. Maowang 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

lol, this is why it's so messy. I personally don't believe the 漢族 term. To me it's like using 亞洲人 or "Mongoloid" (can encompass Korean, Japanese, Viets, Thai, etc where there was significant Chinese influence). "Taiwanese" is both real and imagined. "Chinese" is asserted by those who maintain their heritage and by the ROC (KMT) government. It's even insulting to the minorities like Uyghurs, Tibetans, Mongols, ethnic Koreans, etc to use the term 漢族 and 中華民族. You have many sources to use, and I think it would make for a great article at Taiwan's article. However, it's not appropriate for this Taiwanese people article. — Nrtm81 18:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Are any of these references online (like JSTOR)?

If you'd like a list, see the source books at the bottom of this page for starters. There are more in the reference section, including the books I have discussed in this discussion. They should be available in your local library, university or bookstore. In any future article I would be happy to provide solid sources as provided for this article and more.

Nationalism (and nationalized identities) is/are like believing in a god...it takes an act of faith (immagination). Many times the leap of faith is made by groups of people. The problem is that not everyone is a believer, or envisions "god" in the same way.

On the aboriginal mixing... If you were to take a genetic sample of the peoples of China... you would find they are as mixed with every type of gene too... it is not the genetics that make a person Chinese or non-Chinese....the genetics don't matter and you will never find any "pure" anything. "Han" is a behavior pattern and even that differs from region to region, place to place. Now...it would be fair to say...that intermixing in Taiwan between Han from Fujian etal. and Aborigines greatly altered the manner their descendants praciced being Han and/or Aborigine. Politicians and governments use all sorts of myths (see article) to mobilize people for political aims. Tang wai activists played on the fact of Ping pu mixing to construct a narrative that fit their political view and mobilize Taiwanese against the establishment, which could be characterized as a "sojourn government". On the same token, the popular Chinese Nationalist narrative of a "Chinese People with 5000 years of history" and "common blood, common culture, common language"... is also a political tool to unite an otherwise pluralistic group into a nation and to claim territory i.e. Taiwan. This narrative has also grown to encompass the broadest possible definition. My favorite example is Michael Chang (provided by Melissa J. Brown) in which China claims Taiwan based on the above narrative that all Han are Chinese and thus Taiwanese are Han and belong to China...etc...Michael Chang is considered Chinese and claimed as a "Chinese national hero in both Taiwan and China, yet, he was born in the USA (Lives of Mercer Island, Washington State), doesn't speak any sinitic language and is a devout Christian... so what is he? At the same time the Chinese definition of Chinese=Han assumes an unequal chauvinistic imbalance between Han and the 55 other "minzu" in China... so if they are not Han...can they be Chinese...? It's a matter of immagination and choice.Maowang 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My beef is with those who claim that, because the 17th/18th century Han migrants to Taiwan intermarried with aboriginals, their descendants cannot be considered "Chinese". The history of Chinese migrations and expansions for thousands of years shows that the spread of direct imperial authority (or before that, the sphere on the central states) resulted more in the cultural assimilation than the displacement of local populations. And given this migration is only 300 years old, a good number of Taiwanese are genetically closer to Fujianese than fellow Taiwanese.

Isn't the concept of "ethnicity" inherently a social construct? Built into its definition are ingroups and outgroups based on social identification, not genetics (though presumed genetics may be used as a reason for the social identification). If people self-identify (and identify others) with these socially constructed categories, then we have to say they exist.--Jiang 13:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

But if we take self-identification to its logical extreme, then I would be forced into saying that Ward Churchill is an honest man — and that is one road I cannot walk! ;-)

I keep telling everyone, there's no way to sort this out into a definitive answer. The issue is too much of a political hot potato. The only possible solution is "Some people say this, some people say that" (e.g., citizenship versus social identification versus whatever) with links to articles like Chinese people and ROC and yadda yadda. --Ling.Nut 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why we must avoid the political aspect (Taiwan nationality debate) in this article, it should just be stated as the current facts: ROC says Han Chinese and Aborigines, but in Taiwan they divide it into four groups. Such facts are informational and presents multiple views. Before I was angry to hear about that "no longer Chinese cuz of mixing" claim, but I believe that it's also important and a valid view since many in Taiwan do hold such a view (especially Hoklo people). Though the problem is lack of sources on DNA analysis. Furthermore, like User:Ran had said, to claim Taiwanese is not Han Chinese is counter to currently accepted views and would render Cantonese, Hakka, etc other "ethnic groups" as non-Han Chinese. It would just create more problems. — Nrtm81 18:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So long as they were born and raised in ROC or one parent is legal ROC citizen, etc then that child is also a Taiwanese. The foreigner parent however, is not Taiwanese. He/she can be if become naturalized citizen though. (Though technically, Chinese, since ROC is still "China)

This upsets me. You have no right to tell anyone what they are! My wife and I will start on having children in the next year and my children WILL NOT BE Chinese and as a contributing participant in Taiwanese society, I am as valid a part of Taiwanese life for my children. You have no space to doubt my Taiwaneseness as I am a participant in the daily discourse of contemporary Taiwanese society I am as Taiwanese as Ma Ying Jiu. My child will be both an ethnic Taiwanese and an ethnic American. FU!

Why are you getting upset? It is a FACT that there is no such thing as "Taiwanese" nationality, your children will only be "Chinese" nationals because "Republic of CHINA" rules Taiwan at the moment (I don't care about the politics, if they stay as ROC, become part of PRC, or independence from ROC, I can accept either of those). "Taiwanese" is just an identity no different from "Hainanese, Hunanese, Cherokee, Inuit, American Indian" etc. It's not a nationality. Your children will be "American AND Chinese" in terms of nationality but "American AND Taiwanese" in identity. I don't know about your background, if you are Chinese-American then it's easier for you to fit into society as a Taiwanese. But if you are a White American, then few if anybody will accept you as a Taiwanese though you can joke "I'm Taiwanese at heart" (heck, look at Arudou Debito in Japan, he IS Japanese by law but most Japanese consider him gaijin). I don't care if you are anti-Chinese or anti-China, the FACT remains your children will be "Chinese" nationals as long as ROC still runs the show. — Nrtm81 09:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This thread has more doglegs than a slinky! My first thought would be to refactor, but I think that's hopeless... would anyone like to start a new thread, and try not to jump back and forth inbewteen each other's comments so much this time? ;-) --Ling.Nut 00:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the current article has all the main pieces of what we are discussing, they just need to be rearranged, and editied in a logical manner. We have the mushy theory, national/political identities, Self-identities...ethnic/cultural... New Taiwanese... it's all here, just needs to be cleaned up and sourced.Maowang 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The goal of this article, I think we all agree, is to give all perspectives at least a small section to give a very condensed version of their perspective... with wikilinks perhaps to other articles that explore some aspects in greater detail.. and most importantly, with a LEDE that is very, very strictly edited for WP:NPOV. I think the feeling of the IP editor posted 13:33, 3 April 2007 are one view, and that view deserves a section making its case (using encylopedic language, however ;-) ) I do NOT thinking expressing strong feelings on the talk works in any way toward accomplishing those goals. :-) Let's concentrate on a making nice, concise, WP:NPOV article, OK? Let's not fan the flames on Talk. It is very counterproductive. Seriously. --Ling.Nut 13:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I repeat myself too much. I think the identities should be a sentence or two in this article and linked to Taiwan's identity crisis. As for history of each group, just a brief overview with more details in Hoklo people, Hakka, Mainlander, Taiwanese aborigines. Genetics should be brief but since it deals with political/national identity, the main content should be at Taiwan's identity crisis. Since the identity issue is both controversial, political, and part of an ongoing (independence) movement, it has not yet been realized. So it's important that people know ROC governs two provinces and the people are Chinese nationals.

As for "ethnic groups", I'm not sure how we can fix this. Since GIO states only two ethnic groups: Han & Aborigines. The conception of four groups is IMO based largely on language: Hoklo, Hakka, Mandarin, Austronesian. — Nrtm81 18:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you were to use the above as a division by language, then it becomes Han chauvinistic and would more accurately be Sinitic and Austronesian...only two groups. I think there are still 14 mother tongues spoken on Taiwan... including Japanese. I see alot of people objecting to being Chinese Nationals. It may say so on paper that they are ROC citizens, but whether they agree they are "Chinese nationals" is another story. Then if you say the ROC governs two provinces...that says Taiwan is only a province of China and another can of worms... I see people objecting to that. It might be better to move the R.O.C. part to the Identity Crisis section or have its own section to include the problems with how and why the ROC is on Taiwan...and how many Taiwanese voted to become citizens of the ROC etc... maybe discussing the ROC apart from Taiwan would be better?Maowang 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't use that definition (grouping by languages), I said it's my personal opinion. Japanese is only spoken by the grandpas and grandmas, once they die off, there won't be any native speakers. I don't know about Austronesian languages, I get the impression that it's dying out with the old people because of Mandarin. Seems like the young generation speak Hoklo and Mandarin instead of their native languages.

As for the "Chinese nationals", that argument lacks basis. ROC is recognized as the entity that governs Taiwan, the constitution in use states "Chinese" nationality. It has jurisdiction over two provinces (Fujian is divided between ROC and PRC). Taiwan is a province under ROC. Did Taiwanese vote to become Chinese? I thought KMT just took over the island from Japan and declared everything belonging to ROC and inhabitants as ROC citizens. Nobody had a say in that matter.

ROC should be mentioned only in terms of geography and mainlanders in the article, but briefly. The "identity" and "politics" belongs in Taiwan's identity crisis. Can't people see Taiwan/Taiwanese refers to all of ROC? If we were to be politically correct, then it would only be China/Chinese and no Taiwanese. Biographies of Taiwanese people would become "Chinese". Crackdown! lol — Nrtm81 18:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Section Break

I have moved the content from Taiwanese which was an overloaded disambiguation page. I have marked it POV, which does not mean I disagree with the whole of the content, but that it is not "neutral" in the Wikipedia sense. I think the original author tried too hard to make a case which could be easily made in a more elegant way. – Kaihsu 17:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am sure there is a more elegant way, but I did try to divulge some truth to this issue with Taiwanese. I am open to better ideas. But I think these are important. Based on the English-language literature/tourist information about Taiwan that is made available in the US, and speaking with people who grew up in Taiwan, I have witnessed brain-washing from KMT government during Martial Law. I have also spoken to enough non-Taiwanese people to know that they do think that Taiwanese are the immigrants and soldiers who came with Chiang Kai-shek's forces to Taiwan. I have spoken to people who think Taiwanese language and Mandarin are the same!

I am also aware of the extreme Taiwanese independence people who refuse to learn Mandarin even when it means they cannot read Chinese characters, and who think that Taiwanese are 95-100% lowland aborigines. Somehow, there is middle ground somewhere.

It's not that TI people refuse to learn to read Chinese characters, they refuse to learn simplified Chinese characters(used in China). They know how to read traditional Chinese characters(used in Taiwan and most Chinese speaking countires). Mshih 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mass migration of southern Chinese to Taiwan only happened after Koxinga kicked out all the Dutch. When the Chinese migrated en masse to Taiwan they pushed the aboriginals to the mountains hence the term "mountain people". There was and still is a lot of discrimination against the aboriginals(intermarriage would've been an anomaly and not the norm). The Hakkas were pushed out as well by the Min-nan speaking majority and their settlements are also near the mountain areas. Canadians may be ethnically French or English. Taiwanese may be ethnically Hoklo or Hakka or "Beijing people" Those who identify with mainland China ought to go back to China. dlc_73 11:50 PM, 25 March 2006

This article is totally biased. It looks like it's been taken straight from the People's Republic of China propaganda handbook!

What the devils are you talking about? lol. Don't you know anything about Taiwan? It's government and academic institutions all use the term "Han Chinese" or "Chinese" to describe Hoklo, Hakka, and mainlander groups. Go check it yourself. Pulling out the PRC card is starting to get old and ridiculous. So many political lunatics out there... — Nrtm81 20:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu

These should be included as listed for the following reasons:

1) During the Treaty of Shimonoseki Kinmen and Matsu were not included as Japanese posessions and thus could not form an ideneity as a part of Japanese Formosa, the event which gave rise to a common feeling of Taiwaneseness among colonial subjects.

2) These terms are used officially by the R.O.C. in international organizations.

3) Only after 1949 were the four island groups united under a single polity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maowang (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Taiwanese are not Chinese

Thanks for making the changes. Appreciate your consideration on this sensitive matter. However, by labelling all Taiwanese as Chinese, you are continuing the propaganda started by KMT that have indoctrinated the islands people for the past 50 years. If you could just use what is listed on the CIA World Factbook, that would be the best. There, they list Ethnic groups as follows: Taiwanese (including Hakka) 84%, mainland Chinese 14%, aborigine 2%. Here is the link if you want to see. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tw.html That is the most neutral position. Labelling Taiwanese as Chinese only plays into the hands of the mainland Chinese on Taiwan who desire reunification and the People's Republic of China who want to take over the island and expand their Chinese hegemony. Had the Japanese won World War II, most Taiwanese would probably be Japanese today. In fact, many Taiwanese before WWII were already speaking Japanese at home and had changed their surnames to Japanese. So it all depends on who the colonizers are. But as a native Taiwanese who speaks the language fluently, let me just say that linguistically, Taiwanese is so different from Mandarin that the speaker of one cannot comprehend the other. The difference is greater than that between Spanish and French, or English and German. For example, Hoklo language uses 8 tones and uses a lot of nasal sounds while mandarin uses only 4 tones and no nasal. Completely different language. So if language is a major part of culture, it is hard to make the case that Taiwanese are Chinese. Before the end of World War II, the majority of people in Taiwan did not speak Mandarin. They spoke Taiwanese. So their original ethnicity is Taiwanese, even though the KMT colonizers forced the population to learn and speak Chinese. I guess we will have more of this discussion in the future. -- 71.106.149.53

There are many people in the Fujian province, mainland China who also speak the so called Hoklo language, but they never doubt the truth that they are Chinese. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sinolonghai (talk • contribs) 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

- Taiwanese are not Chinese, those who reside in Taiwan before others from China Mainland during Ming/Qing Dynasty of China and Republican China era, Western states during Colonial/Imperialist Age and Japanese militarism/colonization since 1895 are true and original Taiwanese. Those who speak Mandarin Chinese, Minnanese Chinese and Hakka Chinese are Chinese Descendants from China Mainland. Only Taiwan Aborigines can be called Taiwanese on Taiwan and their language, culture and custom are totally different comparing with Chinese.

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese_aborigines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min_Nan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainlander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan/History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_militarism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_imperialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China

Politics:

Current government of ROC is preparing drafting ROC Second Republic Constitution which changes ROC Executive Yuan to State Department and authorizes ROC legislature much greater power than the President like Cabinet system, limits ROC territorial boundary to existing one excluding Mainland China and Outer Mongolia because both PRC and (Outer) Mongolia are internationally recognized, and sets prerequisite that (any) government of ROC to have any kind of political reations with the PRC will be dealt through equal and peaceful basis government-to-government consultation with final approval of public referendum in ROC. In addition with the new Constitution, all current ROC laws regarding cross-strait relations will be abolished. Legislature has greater balance of power such as hearing (previously Control Yuan authorizes it) with the design of new Constitution. The new Constituion is to be drafted to have three power system which is different from the original five power structure.

see:

http://news.yam.com/cna/politics/200703/20070318040082.html (in Traditional Chinese) http://news.yam.com/chinatimes/politics/200703/20070317037220.html (in Traditional Chinese) http://news.yam.com/cna/politics/200703/20070318040201.html (in Traditional Chinese)

No, saying that only Taiwanese aborigines can be called the Taiwanese people is just like saying only the native Americans can be called the American people, which is not true.--Jerrypp772000 12:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why Taiwanese are Chinese

This is in reply to 71.106.149.53

Identity

• Taiwanese language is a misconception. It is actually Hokkien language (閩南語) which is a Chinese language (dialect/language, whatever people like to call it).
• Language/Culture/Religion of Taiwanese (Hoklo & Hakka) is Chinese language, Chinese culture, Chinese religion.
• "Taiwanese person" (臺灣人) is no different than "Cantonese person" (廣東人), "North-easterner" (東北人) who do not deny being Chinese. Thai-Chinese and Singaporean-Chinese [1] who are closest to Taiwanese (Hoklo & Hakka) people, also identify themselves as Chinese. They do not deny being Chinese.
• Technically, "Taiwanese person" should only refer to the aboriginals who are the true Taiwanese. The word "Taiwan" comes from their (aboriginal) language as do many places in Taiwan such as Wanhua district which comes from aboriginal word Bangka (Chinese transliteration of this word uses the "boat" radical (舟) and phonetics 艋舺).
• The aboriginals are the only ethnic group that is actually non-Chinese, their language is not Chinese, their culture is not Chinese, and their religion is not Chinese (Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc). They have a seperate identity from "Taiwanese" (Hoklo & Hakka).

The only reason Minnan has been referred to as a Chinese dialect is because the Taiwanese continued to use Han characters for their written language, having not established a written language of their own(the Taiwanese Romanization System is still being developed as we speak). However, since Japanese in the 17th century also used exclusively Han characters, why not call Japanese a Chinese dialect. As I said earlier, Hoklo language is totally different from Mandarin just as Japanese is different from Mandarin. Of course, like Japanese, there are some loan words from Chinese, but many Taiwanese words include loan words from Japanese as well. In fact, most of the terms relating to politics such as Democracy or freedom were first invented by the Japanese.

Also, most Taiwanese 20 years ago did not like to call themselves Taiwanese. They wanted to call themselves Formosans. So maybe we should use the term to describe Taiwanese, if you want to call aboriginals Taiwanese.

Finally, as genetic research would show, the aboriginals also originally came from the mainland and were also one of the Yueh tribes. The only difference between the aboriginals and the Hoklo/Hakka is that the aboriginals arrived in Taiwan 6000 years ago whereas the Hakka/Hoklo probably 1000 years ago. So, in a sense, the aboriginals and the Hakka/Hoklo share distant relatives of the Yueh. Remember, the Yueh people were seafarers, so the immigration of Hoklo/Hakka to Taiwan (Formosa)began much earlier than people think. When the Portuguese discovered Taiwan, there were already many Hoklo and Hakka settlements and who knew how long they had been there. Perhaps the people were already there 500 to 600 years prior to the Portuguese in 1600s.

Yes but we need to provide the sources of such research. We can't just say "oh I read it somewhere so it must be true". Who wrote the research? Who published it? Is the source reliable? Is the source neutral or politically motivated?

Oh and by the way, that Taipei Times article [2] is not acceptable because it is an "editorial" i.e. user opinion. A "Patrick Cowsill" wrote his opinion "Research tells us that 88 percent of the population has some Aboriginal blood, so we know that there is no pure Han super-race here." What research? Also "Han Chinese" is not a race. I've said it before, how can 1.3 billion Chinese be one race? It's an identity to do with Chinese culture, writing, language, etc. Why are Hoklo and Hakka seperate? Are they not mixed with each other and aborigines? It's funny that an identity of Taiwanese has to distinguish the Chinese as three groups. In the politically motivated sense, Hoklo think they are the only Taiwanese because Minnan dialect is called "Taiwanese", despite Hakka and aboriginal languages. Very weird if you ask me. — Nrtm81 09:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to make a distinction here between huaren (Chinese in culture / ethnicity) and zhongguoren (Chinese in nationality). There is no dispute as far as the former is concerned, in fact Taiwanese consider Taiwan as a sort of refuge of Chinese culture away from the communist onslaught. The real dispute is with the latter. All those surveys are also about the latter: are you zhongguoren or taiwanren or both? If the survey was changed to huaren, the results would be completely different... in fact the pro-unification people would probably reject huaren because it sounds like "Overseas Chinese". -- ran (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Most Taiwanese call themselves "taiwanren", no zhongguroen or huaren. Never do they refer to themselves as Hanjin. I've talked to a lot of Taiwanese overseas and they all refer to themselves as Taiwanese, so don't force your Chinese identification down our throats. There is currently a strong movement in Taiwan toward de-Sinicization and toward Taiwanese Localization. Looks like it is succeeding. More children are learning Taiwanese in school, and they are learning the new Taiwanese Romanization system. The bottom line is that anyone who doesn't speak Taiwanese in Taiwan will not be able to get good jobs in banking, airlines, etc., nor will they advance in politics. The tide is turning. Long live Taiwanese nationalism, my friends!!!!

De-sinicization? You've gotta be joking. That would mean you completely abandon Chinese culture. Only 原住民 can demand de-sinicization. They don't want you 98% Chinese in Taiwan in the first place. You hijacked their native land and identity. What's this bullshit about 臺灣話? You use 閩南語 (Chinese dialect) and call it Taiwanese (language). What a slap in the face to everyone in Taiwan. You have just admitted you are here for political reasons. Go write in your blog instead of messing around in Wikipedia. "Taiwanese nationalism"? lol, more like Hoklo hijacking of Taiwan as usual. — Nrtm81 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay everyone, Wikipedia is not a debate forum, it is not a battleground for ideologies, and it is not a place to predict the future. You are not here to promote a certain campaign. Please keep that in mind.

Nrtm81: please refrain from using profanities during discussions. Also, while you may feel indignant about the "renaming" of 閩南話 into 臺灣話, or the "hijacking" of the Taiwanese identity by 閩南人, please keep in mind that this does take place as an organized campaign; and as long as such a campaign exists, it is Wikipedia's job to document it, though in an NPOV and NOR way, of course.

User:71.106.151.242: what you are doing is completely changing the definition of Han Chinese from what it is conventionally taken to be. If we go by your definition of Han Chinese, then not only are Taiwanese not Han Chinese, the entire population of southern China, plus most Southeast Asian and North American Chinese communities, aren't Han Chinese either. You may think that this is true and that Cantonese / Hakka people are really dumb for not having realized this yet, but Wikipedia is not a place to reflect your views on what Han Chinese should be. It is a place to reflect the general definition of Han Chinese that is accepted now. -- ran (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The aboriginals are the only ethnic group that is actually non-Chinese, their language is not Chinese, their culture is not Chinese, and their religion is not Chinese (Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc). They have a seperate identity from "Taiwanese" (Hoklo & Hakka).

sorry but this is nonsense, Taiwanese or-you called them Chinese have the same religion.

Genetics

• In genetic studies, the term "Taiwanese" only refers to the aboriginals. "Taiwan Han Chinese" is the term used to refer to Hoklo & Hakka[3] (pdf file) The population tree puts "Taiwanese" (Hoklo & Hakka) together with Cantonese people (TwCa in Fig. 2) See page "5 of 8".
• Aboriginals are not genetically related to "Taiwanese" (Hoklo & Hakka) people. They are genetically related to polynesian and melanesian people[4].
• Some "Taiwanese" (Hoklo & Hakka) may have aboriginal blood but we really need reliable sources to show what degree they have aboriginal blood and how many Taiwanese (Hoklo & Hakka) have aboriginal blood.
• Taiwanese people article claims over 88% of Taiwan Han Chinese have some degree of aborigine blood but it did not give the source for this claim. Also it does not mention to what degree, is it enough that they are significantly different from other southern Chinese?

I thought you agreed that Taiwanese (Hoklo & Hakka) are Chinese, which is why I made the efforts to change Han Chinese to Chinese since you said this was more neutral a term to use. Now you seem to suggest that Taiwanese (Hoklo & Hakka) are actually not Chinese. It is important to have reliable sources for such claims otherwise it is controversial, unreliable, and biased.

If you can, try to find as much sources that supports the view that Taiwanese are not Chinese then, the article can reflect this without controversy. — Nrtm81 01:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is how Taiwanese really feel to support the view that Taiwanese are not Chinese. http://www.itulip.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-117.html

Here is an article that show that Hoklo/Hakka are related to aboriginals by blood (Bai-Yueh). http://www.asiawind.com/forums/read.php?f=2&i=646&t=646. Follow the discussion thread and you'll find interesting discussion on the Han as well.

OK, the problem with the links you have given is that they all come from forums and even the text does not give any sources. Example: "Recent publicized articles indicate that..." but it does not say from where those articles came from or which organization published it. Wikipedia needs to cite reliable sources for text that may be controversial. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but you need to find reliable and credible sources so that other people can check and confirm that this article is not being political (i.e. pushing an idea/theory that can't be verified by reliable and neutral sources). It is the "traditional view" that the Hoklo and Hakka are Chinese. To say they are not Chinese, are actually a distinct seperate ethnic group, genetically different (Malay, polynesian, aborigine mix, etc) with no similar group on mainland China, this is a "revisionist view" so we need many credible sources so that the article doesn't cause controversy. — Nrtm81 09:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Give me a month. I don't have time right now to find them but they are there and will be found, so stay tuned.

It's true that most southern Han Chinese have a very high degree of Southeast Asian admixture. However, the definition of "Han Chinese" is not based on drops of blood, it is based on the adoption of Han Chinese languages and culture. If you use genetics as a basis for disproving that Taiwanese are Chinese, then Wu-Yue, Hokkienese, Hakka, and Cantonese wouldn't be Chinese either. In fact, you should probably then say that there's no such thing as ethnic Taiwanese (as they are actually ethnically Hokkien), and that some mainlanders aren't Chinese either (e.g. Chiang Kai-shek was ethnically Wu-Yue). In addition, the vast majority of Singaporean Chinese, Malaysian Chinese, Indonesian Chinese, Filipino Chinese, Thai Chinese, etc. wouldn't be Chinese either, as they are mostly Hokkien, Hakka, Teochew, Cantonese, and Hainanese in origin. In short, this is a fundamental redefinition of "Chinese" which goes against current convention. -- ran (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Many Taiwanese still speak Taiwanese at home, so if you are referring to language and culture, most Taiwanese are still retaining their own unique Taiwanese identities. Since most in Southern and Central Taiwan, which is not populated as much by mainlanders, still consider Taiwanese as their mother tongue, wouldn't you say it is more appropriate to regard their ethnicity as Taiwanese rather than Chinese? The Han Chinese culture was forced upon the Taiwanese people by the colonizers. Prior to 1949, most Taiwanese spoke Taiwanese, and most also spoke Japanese. So under your rules, the people would have been ethnically Japanese had Japan won World War II. - V

You took the words right out of my mouth. Wu-Yue, Hokkienese, Hakka, and Cantonese wouldn't be Chinese. Its true. Singaporeans are dumb. They think they are Chinese when they don't even have Chinese blood. Most are descendents of the Bai-Yueh, but they are too dumb to look into their own past. The Hokkien language they speak is not a Chinese dialect, but one that originated from Austro-Thai and was Sinicized somewhat later on in order to adapt to Han characters, but different from Mandarin because it has 8 tones and nasal sounds while Mandarin only has 4 tones and no nasal sound. When we are talking about Chinese language, we are talking about Manchu language.

No, both Mandarin and Hokkien are Sinitic languages. While Mandarin has been influenced by Mongol and Manchu, and Hokkien by ancient Bai-Yue languages, both are nevertheless derived from Proto-Sinitic, with a common corpus of vocabulary from Proto-Sinitic, and regular sound changes linking Proto-Sinitic and all of these modern Sinitic languages. Modern phonological peculiarities are generally not used to establish linguistic relations, as these can spread quite easily through regional sprachbunds or arise independently; in contrast, regular sound correspondences are used. (An analogy to this would be: both French and Romanian are Romance languages, even though French has Germanic influences and Romanian has Slavic influences. This is because the core vocabulary of French and Romanian are Romance in origin, and both have regular sound correspondnces to Vulgar Latin and to other Romance languages. The fact that French and Romanian have very different phonological systems, due partially to Germanic and Slavic influence, does not change this.)

Also, you are welcome to define Wu-Yue, Hokkienese, Hakka, and Cantonese as non-Chinese, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia needs to record the conventional definition of Chinese, not people's personal definitions. By your definition, three of the four people displayed on top of the Han Chinese article would not be Han Chinese (and I'm sure Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek wouldn't be very happy about being told that they're *not* Han Chinese on the basis of what their ancestors were 1000 years ago.) The conventional definition of Chinese, which encompasses Wu-Yue, Hokkien, Hakka, and Cantonese, is not based on genetics; it is based on a common group of related cultures linked together by Sinitic languages.

-- ran (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong people made the mistake of agreeing to be devoured by the greater Chinese hegemony. The consequence of the acquiescence is 1) they will lose their own local tongue - Cantonese -- perhaps in as few as two generation. 2) they lose their own unique identities. If everyone is Chinese, Hong Kongers will gradually lose their local culture. Soon, they will be no different from Beijingers or Shanghaiers.

Yes, that's possible. And that is relevant to this article because? -- ran (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Taiwanese are Taiwanese

South Korea is the nickname for the Republic of Korea, therefore people from the Republic of Korea are often called South Korean. Taiwan is the common name for the Republic of China. So, politically people in Taiwan should really be called Taiwanese.--Jerrypp772000 15:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comparison doesn't work for Taiwan because Korea is still Korea (and people are Korean), the only difference is calling one North and the other South. Taiwan, however is a completely different term from China (people being called Chinese vs. Taiwanese). The "Taiwanese" even reject this term being applied to 14% of the population who immigrated to Taiwan since the 20th century (it is a form of discrimination).

The term "Taiwanese" is a politically motivated term by those who favor independence and wish to sever all relations with China despite being Chinese themselves. It's basically hijacking the aboriginal identity for their own political purpose. The aboriginal people would reject "Taiwanese" being applied to all Chinese (98% of the population) since this term actually should only apply to the aboriginals. Genetic studies even use two different terms: 1. Taiwanese (aborigine only) 2. Taiwan Han Chinese (Hokkien, Hakka, mainlander). Very ironic.

I think the term Taiwanese should be dropped. Remember, the word Taiwan was first used after World War II. Prior to this period, everyone knew Taiwan as Formosa. So maybe we should all call native Taiwanese Formosans and call aborigines Taiwanese. 228revenge 06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

From a Western point of view, we would think Taiwanese applied to everyone who is a citizen of the ROC, basically everyone from/living in Taiwan. But in reality, this term has a deeper root based in politics and discrimination. — Nrtm81 23:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the term "Taiwanese" excludes aboriginals. Native Taiwanese include those peoples on the island before the Chinese and Japanese colonizers came. So "Taiwanese" include aboriginals, Hakka and Hoklo.

Politically people from Taiwan should still be called Taiwanese, since the Republic of China is commonly known as Taiwan, See Wikipedia:Use common names.Or, for some Chinese people from mainland, at least the people that are from the island of Taiwan.--Jerrypp772000 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But the anonymous user is insisting that Taiwanese excludes "mainlanders". In effect only people of ethnic Hokkien, Hakka, and also the aborigines are Taiwanese. (I didn't say Taiwanese excluded aborigines, I said the Chinese (Hokkien, Hakka) hijacked the Taiwanese identity of the aborigines for political use against China i.e. "We are not Chinese, we are Taiwanese") — Nrtm81 09:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of playing with the Taiwanese/Chinese game, why not just break down the ethnicity into more detail instead of using generalizations such as Han Chinese. Why not just say 70% Hoklo, 14% Hakka, 14% Mainland Chinese and 2% percent aboriginal, without having to use either the label Taiwanese or Chinese. That way it is more clear. Or how about completely just eliminate the ethnicity from the Taiwan page. There is really no true ethnicity now since many are now of mixed blood. Hakka mixing with Hoklo, Mainlander with Hoklo, Hoklo with Thai, Vietnamese, etc. So, even the ethnic breakdown is no longer accurate because there is so much mixed ethnicities now that it is really hard to say who is pure Hoklo, pure Hakka and pure Mainlander. Maybe we just leave out the ethnicity part of taiwan, but include the history part that talks about where the Hoklo/Hakka peoples originated from, name from the Yueh in Southeast China, with the potential of having Austro-Thai or aborigine blood. For example, the 2% aboriginals is no longer accurate. Most aboriginals have already intermarried or intermixed with the general population, so there is no longer many pure aboriginals. They are just fooling tourists when they say they are pure aboriginal because many only have 25% aboriginal blood left but they wear the aboriginal costumes just to earn a living from the tourists.

Part of the first paragraph should not be in this article, but maybe in the Chinese people article. In fact it is biased for saying Taiwan isn't an independent nation. It's like saying South Korea isn't an independent nation, but it is governed by the Republic of Korea. That is totally wrong. I say someone should really edit the very first paragraph.--Jerrypp772000 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually before the 1990's or so, it was accurate in some sense to say that "South Korea isn't independent, but is governed by the Republic of Korea". This is because before the 1990's North & South Korea completely refused to recognize each other. South Korea regarded itself as the rightful government of all Korea and would not have accepted the assertion that South Korea and North Korea are independent from each other. This changed in the 1990's when the two Koreas began to establish relations with countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain, accepted each other's existence in the UN, etc. But a similar change hasn't happened in the Taiwan Straits yet. -- ran (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Taiwanese just aren't Chinese (中國人), although they can be ethnic Chinese or Han Chinese. People from Singapore are mostly ethnic Chinese but they aren't Chinese.--Jerrypp772000 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean Taiwanese are not Chinese? That is completely perposterous. Just because the common name of the Republic of China is Taiwan doesn't mean that they are not Chinese. The Name is still the Republic of China. They are still citizens of the Republic of China. China is the name of the country. I don't see Taiwan in the official name. No matter what, according to law and the current status of the ROC, all people of Taiwan are Chinese. They are Citizens of the Republic of China. Then what would you call the Kinmen and Matsu people? Alex678 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan is not only the name of the island or the province, but also the common name of the ROC. The Republic of China is not "China".

"No matter what, according to law and the current status of the ROC, all people of Taiwan are Chinese." Not exactly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's about the fact, not the laws.--Jerrypp772000 17:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But it is a fact that that all citizens of the Republic of China are Chinese. There is no Taiwan in the name of the ROC. The fact is that Taiwan is still governed as a province of the Republic of China. And the nationality of all ROC citizens are Chinese or Republic of China. What about the Kinmen and Matsu people? They are not Taiwanese at all. You didn't answer that -Alex678 23:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Taiwanese is not an ethnicity, it's a way to describe a certain group of people. Since Taiwan is the common name of the ROC, Taiwanese may apply to anyone that is a citizen of the ROC.--Jerrypp772000 23:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So I guess you are saying the Matsu and Kinmen people are Taiwanese. That is extremely misleading and false in so many ways that it is not countable. So Chiang Kai-shek and Sun Yat-sen are Taiwanese too? They were both citizens of the ROC. So Ma Ying-jeou is also Taiwanese, but how come people call him Wai Sheng Ren Alex678 00:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not getting this. Mainlanders are considered Taiwanese too. Please read the whole article first.--Jerrypp772000 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Woah! Slow down... This page offers a variety of readings of a Taiwanese identity so that the authors of this page can avoid colonizing or nationalizing the term "Taiwanese" NPOV. The rigid definitions you are all discussing are loaded with problems. Primordialism, Authenticity/Falsehood, Hybridism, National vs. Ethnic identities, concepts of a proposed race and "blood memory", individual and group identities, the "fact" of ethnic/cultural identity shift and the fluid nature of human civilizations to adapt and change. Colonized readings of ethnicity. Historicization. Are Taiwanese Chinese? I don't know. The only people who know are the individuals. Are they Han? I don't know... it depends on your reading of what is Han. Are the children of mixed couples Chinese or Taiwanese or neither? I don't know? I suggest we get off our nationalist horses for declaring people who are not ourselves to be X, Y or Z. I highly suggest you all read Benedict Anderson's Immagined Communities followed by Homi K. Bhabha's Disemination or Location of Culture, Geertz, Keyes and maybe Said's Orientalism to get a foundation for the complexities of what you are discussing above. Wikipedia is not the space to argue political viewpoints. This is not going to be resolved here.Start a blog or something.Maowang 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

People from Kinmen and Matsu regard themselves as Fujian people (福建人) They certainly do not call themselves Taiwanese. They are Fujian people! and Kinmen and Matsu is still part of Fujian province. Alex678 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Alex678, if you can verify your claim that all the people of those islands regard themselves as Fujianese and do not call themselves or view themselves as Taiwanese then you may change the wording. I feel that would be a difficult task. The verbage used in the definitions is intentionally vague, using the word "may", to accomodate different individual identities. This allows for the greatest latitude between all opinions and avoids conflict. I understand you have a point of view, but in Wikipedia we must adhere to strict NPOV rules despite how much we all disagree. The easiest way to defend your argument in to provide references to support your claims. I suggest academic work, theory and statistics that come from reliable research institutions.Maowang 13:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole page sucks

The reason why this page sucks is that people just add stuff to it without any organization. They put in politics that shouldn't belong in the Ancestry section. It should be in the seperate politics section.

Secondly, if I have to spend time removing the Han Chinese moniker and other chinese propaganda every time I come to contribute, that takes time away from quality writing, editing and organizing. We can't have Ran continue to add stuff that is straight out of the People's Republic of China's handbook. Should strive for neutrality here, which includes not insisting that Taiwanese are Han Chinese. I get a migrane every time I see the term Han Chinese. Grrr. In a recent pole, only 34% think they are both Taiwanese and Chinese, which leaves 66% believing they are not Chinese. So why does Ran keep insisting Taiwanese are Chinese. Its ludicrous. If he loves Han Chinese so much, why doesn't he just go to the Han Chinese page and contribute there instead of butting into Taiwanese business. Taiwanese page is for the native Taiwanese to edit. If you are Chinese, you shouldn't be here. It would be like Greeks involving themselves in editing Turkey's page. Or North Koreans editing South Korean's page. Or the Isrealis editing to Palestinian peoples page. Unless you want me to go to the China page and impose my views that Hakka and Hoklo should be classified as national minorities, etc.

71.106.151.242 08:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The recent poll used the word Zhongguoren (Chinese in a national sense). It did not use Huaren (Chinese by heritage; overseas Chinese) or Hanzu (ethnic Han Chinese). If you did a similar poll among Singaporean Chinese, probably 0% would call themselves Zhongguoren. That does not prove anything. As for butting into "other people's" business, Wikipedia belongs to all of its contributors. We have plenty of Israelis "butting into" Palestinian pages and Palestinians "butting into" Israeli pages. Rather, it is you who should be asking yourself, whether you're representing things as they are now or things as they might be or should be in the future. -- ran (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Recently, Yu Shyi-kun, Chairman of the DPP, referred to himself as 華裔台灣人, or Taiwanese of Chinese ethnicity/heritage. The remark was designed to piss off the PRC government. If Hoklo and Hakka are not Han Chinese in ethnicity, please explain why Yu Shyi-kun, leader of the main independence-leaning party, would say such a thing? -- ran (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've posted this before at Talk:List of Chinese Americans; I suppose posting it again wouldn't hurt.

Let's see what the DPP, the ruling party of Taiwan, whose stated goal is Taiwanese independence, has to say about 中國人 (Chinese in a national sense) and 華人 (ethnic Chinese). All these refer to links within the DPP official website:

[5] Chinese by ethnicity:

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

[6] Chinese by nation:

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

From the above examples, it is clear that from the independence point of view, 中國人 [Chinese by nation] and 台灣人 [Taiwanese] are opposed, while 台灣人 is included in 華人 [Chinese by ethnicity] just as Singaporean Chinese and American Chinese are included in 華人 [Chinese by ethnicity]. The DPP views Taiwanese people as "ethnically Chinese", in the sense that Taiwanese are Chinese in descent and ethnicity, but not Chinese by national identification, in the same way as Singaporean or Malaysian Chinese.

-- ran (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the DPP, please do not smear me by saying that I'm quoting things "straight out of the People's Republic of China's handbook" any more. So far what I've done is to quote the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the main pro-independence party in Taiwan, including its current Chairman, Yu Shyi-kun.

-- ran (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, leave my friend's stuff alone. Don't try to force mainlander and PRC propaganda down our throats. Of course you can cite sources that say Taiwanese are Chinese, but that is the result of 50 years of brainwashing by both the KMT and PRC. If you look at Mao Zedong views during the early period, you will find that at one point he favored independence for Formosans. He was quite sympathetic to the plight of native Taiwanese. That all changed later when Communists China attempted to take over Taiwan, but you will find quotes by Mao in support of Formosans. The ones who have controlled the media for the last 50 years have been chinese governments from both sides of the strait. Neither wanted to talk about the Hoklo/Hakkas non-Han origins, especially their Bai-Yueh connection. Now, everything is slowly being reveal, with DNA evidence proving that Hoklo and Hakka are non-Han from the South, who have mixed with Austro-Tai people in Southeast Asia. Taiwanbest 16:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

....okay.... but I'm quoting the DPP. Note that I haven't quoted the Communist Party anywhere, nor the Kuomintang. Also, I have already agreed above that Hoklo and Hakka in southern China have a very high degree of Bai-yueh admixture. However, I have also explained, several times further above, that:

1. The Hoklo and Hakka had already adopted Han Chinese culture and a Han Chinese identity centuries before Hoklo and Hakka immigrants moved to Taiwan. This identification certainly predates CPC or KMT propaganda;
2. That you are changing the conventional definition of "ethnic Chinese", used not just in Mainland China but also around the world, including Singapore, Malaysia, North America, and even Taiwan (as I've shown by quoting DPP websites). We at Wikipedia reflect what words mean *today*, not what they mean 20 years from now, or what you think they *should* mean.

-- ran (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding your assertion that Hoklo and Hakka are sinicized Austronesian or Tai-Kadai peoples; the Han Chinese article quotes a Nature article in saying that:

Due to several waves of immigration from Northern China to Southern China in China's history, there are strong genetic similarities in the Y chromosome between Southern and Northern Chinese males. However, the mitochondrial DNA of Han Chinese increases in diversity as one looks from Northern to Southern China. This further provides evidence of migration of Han Chinese from Northern to Southern China. As the Han people migrated into Guangdong, Fujian, and other regions of Southern China, they mixed with the local populations there, possibly the Yue people. As this mixing process continued and more Han people migrated south, the people in Southern China became Sinicized and identified themselves as Han.

In other words, southern Han Chinese groups are a mixture of northern Han Chinese immigration, and southern aboriginal groups. It is inaccurate to claim that they are pure either way. And as I have already said, the identification of Wu, Hoklo, Hakka, and Cantonese-speaking peoples as Han Chinese is based on culture rather than drops of blood. -- ran (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

More specifically, based on that article, it looks most Han Chinese have a common paternal lineage but very diverse maternal lineages. This explains why the Y chromosome, which is inherited from fathers only, is mostly uniform, while the mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from mothers only, is diverse. The explanation is likely that the colonization of most of China was done by males, who would have settled down and married local women. --Yuje 03:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Points of POV-pushing present in the anon's version

Of the 23 million Taiwanese, 86% are native Taiwanese, which include aborigines (2%) who were the earliest of inhabitants on the island, immigrants from Fujian (70%) who identify themselves as Hoklo or Holo (pronounced in Taiwanese), and finally Hakka (14%) from Guangdong (Canton) and also Fujian, ...

Why are the Hoklo and Hakka "native Taiwanese"? Are they "native Taiwanese" from the Aboriginal point of view?

It is these descendants who identify themselves as Taiwanese and increasingly reject their identity as Chinese.

This is an over-generalization that confounds the issues of ethnicity and independence. Some Hoklo and Hakka do not reject the Chinese identity, while some Mainlanders do, for example, 外獨會.

The reason for this lies to a great extent with the authoritarian rule of the foreign Kuomintang (KMT) and the Chinese mainlanders (remaining 14% of Taiwan's population) which fled mainland China during the Chinese Civil War and set up government in Taiwan.

How did the entirety of 14% of the population oppress the remaining 86%? Many of the refugees were impoverished themselves. Once again, confounding ethnicity and politics.

Taiwanese opinion on independence is split between the northern and southern half of Taiwan which interestingly also divides the "mainlander" (外省人 Wàishěngrén; Person from outside the Taiwan province) in the north from the "Taiwanese" (本省人 Běnshěngrén; Person native to Taiwan province) in the south.

Now you are confounding the issues of party affiliation, ethnicity, geography, and independence. Not everyone in north Taiwan is mainlander and not everyone in south Taiwan is Hoklo. Not every mainlander votes KMT and not every Hoklo votes DPP. Not every KMT-voter is pro-unification and not every DPP-voter is pro-independence. You made three big leaps to arrive at this unfounded conclusion that north Taiwan wants unification and south Taiwan wants independence.

Contrary to popular belief, this population is of non-Han origin,

I have already explained that you are changing the conventional definition of Han Chinese in order to make this assertion. Hoklo and Hakka do have a lot of Baiyue ancestry, however, by the time they crossed to Taiwan in the 17th - 19th centuries, they had already been Sinicized and had already adopted a Han Chinese identity for many centuries.

True Han Chinese immigrants comprise only 14% of Taiwan's population, also referred to as "Mainlanders" (外省人; Waisheng ren; literally "external-province person").

What about Mainlander immigrants from Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong, Hainan, such as Chiang Kai-shek himself? They are not true Han Chinese either by your definition.

-- ran (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at Ran's user page. He's an ethnic Chinese who is clearly biased. One observer described him as a "traitor" to Taiwan. Taiwanbest 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please address my points rather than my person during the course of discussion. Ethnicity does not mean "bias". -- ran (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, yeah. This is what someone wrote about Ran:

... Taiwan RAN I AM QUITE SURPRISED BY YOU! ON YOUR USER PAGE YOU HAVE THE NATIONAL FLAG OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN), BUT YET YOU SEEM TO BE DOING EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO REVERT ARTICLES AND PUT IN MATERIAL THAT IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE COMMUNIST AGENDA OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

IT WOULD SEEM THAT YOU ARE NOT LOYAL TO TAIWAN AND ARE A TRAITOR WHO WANTS TO GIVE UP THE ROC (TAIWAN) AND KISS THE BUTT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND UNIFY WITH A COMMUNIST COUNTRY THAT SLAUGHTERED THEIR OWN COLLEGE STUDENTS AT TIANNENMAN SQUARE, THAT CREATED A FAMINE DURING THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION, STARTED BY THE BASTARD MAO, WHICH ENDED UP KILLING ACCORDING CIA ESTIMATES AROUND 100 MILLION INNOCENT CHINESE CIVILIANS. THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN) ON THE OTHER HAND IS NOT PERFECT, BUT AT LEAST IT IS A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY, AND THEIR TAIWANESE CITIZENS HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THINGS FOR THE BENEFIT OF TAIWANESE SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, UNLIKE COMMUNIST CHINA! 228revenge 06:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than making these strange and untrue attacks on my person, perhaps you'd like to address my points? Note that I didn't quote the CPC or even the KMT in this discussion, only DPP and Western sources. Throughout this discussion I've been comparing Taiwan to the independent countries of Singapore and Malaysia. And yet I'm a PRC-lover? Intriguing. -- ran (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The newer version is actually not bad. However, Ran put in Han Chinese in the Genetic part of text which is contrary to the article by Dr. Lin. Furthermore, I want the two sentences that I wrote regarding Hoklo/Hakka being decendents of the Yueh. It took me a long time to compose those two sentences and I think it should go back instead of Ran's version. According to the article, there was NO ADVMIXTURE with Han Chinese from the north, contrary to Ran's version. He's putting stuff in there that is contrary to the article. 71.106.157.175 16:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Read this conclusion from Dr. Lin's article:

Also in that study, the map of the first two principal coordinates calculated by the gene frequencies for ABO, MN, and Rh(D) of 28 provinces of China plus Taiwan, it was revealed that there was a clear split between the populations of Taiwan and the southeast coastal provinces from all other parts of China, suggesting that “Taiwanese” and its originating southeast coastal populations (Yueh peoples) might be genetically distinct from the others.

　　These genetic data indicate that the southern Han are basically of southern origin and remain genetically distinct from the northern Han. “Taiwanese” who are descendants of the ancient Yueh peoples preserve the ancestral HLA haplotype A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02 of the Yueh. The genetic distance between “Taiwanese” and southern Han warrant further study because half of the population samples contributing to the HLA data of southern Han used in this study were from Fuchien (5).

71.106.157.175 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The abstract is as follows:

The Minnan and Hakka people groups, the so-called "Taiwanese", are the descendants of early settlers from the southeast coast of China during the last few centuries. Genetically they showed affinities to southern Asian populations as determined by phylogenetic trees and correspondence analysis calculated from HLA allele frequencies. This corresponds historically with the fact that they are the descendants of the southeast coastal indigenous population (Yueh) of China and should therefore not be considered as descendants of "pure" northern Han Chinese. A33-B58-DRB1*03 (A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02), the most common HLA haplotype among "Taiwanese", with a haplotype frequency of 6.3%, has also been found to be the most common haplotype among Thai-Chinese and Singapore Chinese, two other populations also originating from the southeast coast of China. These observations suggest that this haplotype is the most well conserved ancient haplotype of the Yueh.

(So you see, if there were successive intermixing with Northern Han, as Ran suggests, why does the article say that the haplotype is the most well conserved ancient haplotype of the Yueh. If Han Chinese had infiltrated their blood into the pure Yueh, wouldn't the Yueh blood have been diluted after thousands of years. Yet the article says that the Yueh haplotype is still well preserved by the population along the Southeast coast of China)

71.106.157.175 17:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Lin does not assert that the southern Chinese have no northern ancestry. What is being asserted is that:

This corresponds historically with the fact that they are the descendants of the southeast coastal indigenous population (Yueh) of China and should therefore not be considered as descendants of "pure" northern Han Chinese. (my bold)

This is true and I agree with it. The southern Chinese have a high degree of Yueh mixture, but that is not to say that they have no northern mixture as well. As far as I can see, all Dr. Lin is trying to show is the high level of Yueh mixture in southern Han Chinese, which is already a well-established fact.

In any case, I call your attention to this article, which was quoted in Nature to highlight the nature of the Sinicization of the Yueh:

Genetic evidence supports demic diffusion of Han culture

In particular, take a look at the charts on page 304. Chart A represents Y-chromosome frequency, an indicator of direct male ancestry, while chart B represents mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA), an indicator of direct female ancestry. Black triangles are northern Han, white triangles are southern Han (Hokkien, Hakka, Cantonese), crosses are Austro-Asiatic, pluses are Daic, and asterisks are Hmong-Mien.

As can be seen, southern Chinese cluster with northern Chinese in Y-chromosome PC2 values, and with southeast Asian peoples in mtDNA PC2 values. This shows that southern Chinese are an admixture of northern migrants and southern aborigines; in particular, southern Chinese show a strong paternal affinity to northern Chinese, and strong maternal affinity to southeast Asians.

-- ran (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The term Southern Han is very general. If you will note, the Lin article also differentiates between Taiwanese and Southern Han. Here's the quote: "The genetic distance between “Taiwanese” and southern Han warrant further study because half of the population samples contributing to the HLA data of southern Han used in this study were from Fuchien (5)."

Remember that Fujian is a big province that includes populations varying in languages and cultures. The non-Minnan speaking population in Fujian may have some mixture with the Han, perhaps, but we are concentrating on the Minnan and Hakka population, which for the most part, have not mixed with the Northern Han. So, you can't just generalize and say Southern Han. That description is too broad, which is why Dr. Lin wanted to differentiate between "Taiwanese" and southern Han. He sees that even between these two groups, there is a "genetic distance" because the Yueh, who were seafaring peoples, only populated the coastal areas of Fujian, not inland. More specifically, perhaps only the Minnan and Hakka were the direct descendants of the Yueh, and the rest of the non-Minnan and non-Hakka may have some northern Han blood. That is why it is important to make the distinction between Taiwanese, who are predominantly Hoklo and Hakka, and Southern Han, who may be Cantonese, Shanghaiese, etc. who could very well have had more genetic intermixing with Northern Han primarily because there area was more accessible to Northern Han. But since Cantonese are not Min, its irrelevant to the discussion, because we are only concerned with the ancestry of Taiwanese, not the ancestry of Southern Han. You must remember that the reason the southeast coast of China was considered a bastion of the Yueh that maintained their unique culture and language the longer and was sinicized the least was because of geography. The coastal area was protected by mountainous terrain that made it difficult for mass migration of people from the north. Of course, armies from the North could conquer the region and install governments there, gradually sinicizing the population through harsh state control, but intermixing of the Northern Han with the Minnan and Hakka people was very improbably. Take a look at the Mountainous region surrounding the coastal area and you will see that it would take a journey to reach the coast from Northern China is not easy.71.106.157.175 19:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that more investigation is needed, and I also agree with you that the Yueh of Fujian held out longer against Han Chinese control than those in Guangdong or Zhejiang. But we're going into guesswork here when you say that the non-Minnan population of Fujian has northern ancestry while the Minnan population does not, or that Northern Han could not have migrated into Fujian's various hills and valleys over a period of over ten centuries. The two papers that we have here do not claim that the Hoklo and Hakka have no northern ancestry. In fact, what Dr. Lin is trying to disprove, is summed up as:

In this account, "Taiwanese" have been told that their ancestors originated from the Central Plains of North China but migrated to southeast coastal area sometime after the Han Dynasty, during the invasion of the north by northern pastoral nomads. Hence they are assumed to be descendants of "pure" northern Han Chinese from the Central Plains and thus belong to the great tradition of Han (Hwa-Shia).

I agree completely with this, and the paper I quoted agrees with this too, in showing the strong influence of southeast Asian genes on the southern Han. The Hoklo and Hakka populations are in no way "pure" northern Han. But Dr. Lin does not assert that the Hoklo and Hakka populations are pure Yueh either.

And as for this:

A33-B58-DRB1*03 (A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02), the most common HLA haplotype among "Taiwanese", with a haplotype frequency of 6.3%, has also been found to be the most common haplotype among Thai-Chinese and Singapore Chinese, two other populations also originating from the southeast coast of China. These observations suggest that this haplotype is the most well conserved ancient haplotype of the Yueh.

All it's saying is that the southern Han have preserved a Yueh haplotype, which is not surprising at all. But unless you also have figures for the frequency of this haplotype among northern Han and among southeast Asians, you can't just make the assertion that southern Han are pure Yueh. Dr. Lin doesn't assert this either.

-- ran (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a contribution I would like to add. I find this page is pretty clumsy regarding Ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maowang (talk • contribs)

I've moved your suggestion to Taiwanese people/Maowang to make the talk page easier to read. You can also compare diffs here: [7]. -- ran (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This page has some severe flaws. We need to remove "pure-blood" and the gross generalizations and stereotypes promoted by this article. I would like to start writing for the Taiwan wiki Project again, but I am not sure how to get back in. I would really like to help this page align itself with modern social theory to avoid some of the bias, and POV that I am seeing. I would also like to expand on the demographic explanation. I wrote a bunch of the Histroy page and the aboriginal page, so I think I have a lot to add, but the new system on Wikipedia has created "clubs" that are hard for a knowledgeable person to get in. I don't even have access to some articles I wrote the backbone for. ([User:Maowang|talk])

This Taiwanese People page is upsetting a lot of people due to the politicized nature of the topic. Much of the material is reliant on a particular political reading of ethnicity, history, culture, and linguistics. Other parts are POV. A couple sections mention purity, but I do not see any way we can conclude the authenticity or purity of people. If we continue a discussion using terms like "pure" or "pure-blood", we suggest there is conversely impure. I don't think any one here can demonstrate the purity of any group of people dating back to a primordial authenticity. This is page is using false logic. Then we have problems with defining Han and non-Han/ Chinese and non-Chinese. A lot of writers are treating Han as a genetic marker or a fixed identity. Most independent studies show this is false as Han relies on outward practice of Confucian culturalism. Traditionally, Han was used as a marker between levels of perceived "civilization" by the "civilized center". It was possible for all people, including Europeans, to become Han if they demonstrated the "hua" of being civilized or Han. Those who did not practice confucian culturalism were hence Fan or savage... not men. The concept of race did not even enter the Chinese lexicon until the late 19th century, borrowing the term "minzu" from the Japanese. "Race" was seen as essential by Chinese Nationalists to establishing the Chinese nation and if you look at the constitutions of both the PRC and the ROC, you can see the importance they placed on "minzu" and teaching "minzu" to the citizens of the nation. Without this education, "minzu" would not be imagined by the citizens. Then there is the problem of conflicting definitions of Han by both the PRC and the ROC. Regardless, it becomes a political question. Then there is the question of whether people who are being laimed as Han are still Han... If it has been shown that Han can be entered it can also be exited. In places around the world where the KMT did not set up a Hua Qiao office to promote Chineseness, thedescendents of Han immigrants have assimilated into local populations. I suggest the page on Taiwanese people be totally re-written. I suggest the following materials: Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan Frontier-By John Shepherd, Is Taiwan Chinese-By Melissa Brown, Taiwan's Imagined Geography-By Emma Teng, Under an Imperial Sun-By Faye Yuan Kleeman, Chinatown Nomore-By Chen Hsiang-Shui, The Discourse of Race in Modern China-By Frank Dikotter, The Predicament of Culture-By James Clifford, A Translucent Mirror-By Pamela K. Crossley, History in Three Keys-By Paul A. Cohen, China Off Center by ed. Susan D. Blum and Lionel M. Jenson, Becoming Japanese-By Leo T.S. Ching, Cultural Encounters on China's Ethnic Frontiers ed. Stevan Harrell, Ways of Being Ethnic in Southwest China- By Stevan Harrell, Contemporary Taiwanese Cultual Nationalism-By Hsiau A-chin, Culture, Self and Adaptation-By Hsu Mutsu, Collective Rights of Indigenous People-By Jolan Hsieh, Negotiating Ethnicities In China and Taiwan-ed. Melissa Brown, Taiwan In Perspective-ed. Wei-Chin Lee, Decolonizing Methodologies by Linda Tuhiiwai Smith, Orientalism-by Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism- By Edward Said, The Location of Culture -by Himi K. Bhabha, Imagined Communities-By Benedict Anderson... to name a few.

I think the Maowang page can be erasedMaowang 14:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Please help improve this article. Yes, I agree the terms "pure" is biased (It has been in this article since its creation). We need to reflect the present view that Hoklo, Hakka, Mainlander are grouped together under Han Chinese (Both the ROC governmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwanese_people&action=edit#ent, and all academic institutions use this view). We also need to reflect the movement for Taiwanese national identity and independence and the arguments they use against being identified as Chinese as a result of differing colonial periods (Dutch, Tungning, Qing, Japanese, KMT) and the social interaction/integration of the four ethnic groups to create a local Taiwanese cultural identity. I found this article [8] which touches upon these topics. — Nrtm81 09:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Let's do us all a big favor and start including sources. I recognize Taichungren's argument as being of the David Chou/Richard Hartzell ilk, but I am tempted to erase it without sources. If we can back up our contributions with GOOD sources, we can diffuse many of the arguments that arise when discussing a subject that cuts so close to so many people... especially identity and colonizing identities. See you at P.J.'s! ;) If anyone is in Taichung, I'd be happy to open my library.Maowang 06:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I think this page has achieved a degree of neutrality to get rid of the POV tag. It is always difficult when dealing with national, ethnic, self identity and colonizing identities. We have since opened up the page to the understanding of identity and added solid sources, studies, dates and poll figures. I think this greatly reduces POV conflict. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maowang (talk • contribs) 00:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Applying Logic to infer that Taiwanese/Minnan peoples are not Han

Many here have theorized that people of North Han origin migrated South and turned Minnan people -- Hakka and Hoklo -- into Han people and there is substantial Northern blood in Southern Han people. Here is a logical explanation of how this is improbable. Perhaps a few northern Han may have intermixed with Minnan, but this has no effect on the overall population. Remember, even Thomas Jefferson's descendants have a little bit of black blood in them because of his affair with a black servant, which produced an offspring. So why not just call all of Jefferson's descendents Black even if these current descendents now have less than 5% black blood in them. That is my first argument. Second, if Northern Han was able to dominate the South and turn everyone into Han, why were they unsuccessful in changing the spoken language from Hoklo/Hakka into Mandarin prior to World War II. Even after then Ching Dynasty had ruled China for over 300 years, they were still unable to persuade or force the local population of the Southeast coast to speak the Ching language, Mandarin. If you read any sociology book, you will find that language and race have a very high correlation. For instance, you can assume that most of the Creole/French speaking population in Louisiana are of French stock. You are not going to find Anglosaxons among the French in Louisiana. Also remember that intermixing of races was considered taboo in most parts of the world. The French in Louisiana certainly were slow to intermarry with non-French, which is why they kept their language for so long. Similarly, the Hakka were adverse to intermarrying nonHakka, thus preserving their language. The jews were adverse to marrying nonjews, thus preserving their language and culture. Thus, preservation of a language is the primary indicator that a population has not intermixed widely with other populations. But once intermarrying occurs, local populations begin to lose their distinct language, like the Ainu in Japan. So the fact that Taiwanese retain their Hoklo/Hakka languages for so long means that they had very little contact with non-Hoklo/non-Hakka prior to World War II. They were basically isolated. They may have adopted some Han Chinese cultural practices and writing, but they kept their spoken language, which is the key marker of genetic exclusivity.

So by pure reasoning through the observation of the lack of language transformation or change of usage in the Hoklo and Hakka population until after World War II, one can deduce that these populations were also unlikely to intermix with nonHoklo and nonHakka populations. This is how the Hoklo were able to preserve the genetic markers of the Yueh tribes for so long without much dilution.

New Taiwanese

Excluding an estimated 1,000,000 non ROC nationals in the population of the "People on Taiwan" not only renders this page inaccurate, it is also racist. There is no place for racism on Wikipedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taichung Ren (talk • contribs) 05:05, 10 February 2007.

I removed the stuff about the disenfranchisement, since countries usually don't allow non-citizens to vote. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

standardized refs using templates

Some time in the next 2 or 3 weeks, I would be happy to standardize the refs on this page using the same templates used on Taiwanese aborigines. Any objections...? --Ling.Nut 23:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of Taiwanese are not Han Chinese, but Han Taiwanese

• Same race, different identities!
• Like Croatian and Serbian.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.140.126 (talk • contribs)

Moved the "Maowang" page

I moved the "Maowang" subpage of this article, which apparently wasn't even created by Maowang, to User:Ling.Nut/Taiwanese people/Maowang. :-)

The main reason I did so is 'cause I'm anal about not having subpages in mainspace (es ist verboten). It does have a graphic on it and perhaps some useful info.. (?) --Ling.Nut 11:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey do you think it's time to archive this discussion page?--Jerrypp772000 12:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"heavy grammatical influence"

Ummm. This is news to me:

"...heavy grammatical influence from indigenous Austronesian languages."

Cites, please? I'm removing it until someone can verify.

--Ling.Nut 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I read that from a Taiwanese linguist. I'll try to find the source. I guess he found a significant degree of gramatical shift more closely related to Austronesian grammar. Maowang 03:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)