Talk:Taiwanese Americans
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taiwanese Americans article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | Asian Americans Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Taiwan B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
|
Changed statement. It's not true that Taiwanese were the first of three waves of Asian American immigration. I changed the term to ethnic Chinese immigration since all but the most extreme Taiwanese independence supporters do not deny that Taiwanese are ethnic Chinese. --Roadrunner
Clarification please.
Under "Occupations and citizenship status", third paragraph states "... Although the United States requires immigrants to renounce their original citizenship, the government on Taiwan..." This doesn't seem to agree with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Dual_citizenship which states "Although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced to require the actual termination of original citizenship." --ComingSoon
- Good catch. Can an admin please fix it? Jumping cheese Cont@ct 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Monterey Park
Actually, Monterey Park doesn't have that much of a Taiwanese-origin population anymore as it did during the 1970s and 1980s. It seems to me that most Taiwanese American-owned businesses that used to be here have decline or disappeared and the city is now predominantly Cantonese-speaking (instead of Mandarin). It's now mostly mainlanders and Chinese Vietnamese here. Most Taiwanese with money have moved out. I know, I've lived here much of my life. Unfortunately, the Census data lumps all ethnic Chinese as "Chinese" (rather than Taiwanese or Mainland Chinese) so there is no way to verify my claims.
What I can say is that the cities with large and growing Taiwanese populations include Irvine and Rowland Heights in California.
Taiwanese-American beliefs about American politics
I believe this has to do with:
- Immigration Policies for Taiwan.
- United States support for governmental body of the Republic of China.
- United States support of the Taiwan Relations Act.
- Political groups of Taiwan.
I know that each political party treats the Taiwan issue in a different light, and of course it depends on the relationship with China at the time. There are also active political members and groups that live in the United States but travel back to participate in the Taiwan government, which would give political beliefs regarding American politics as well.
I would like to raise a point that in normal terms it's accepted that a Taiwanese American has to hold some form of Green Card or Passport, which in the case of Ang Lee, I don't believe that's true. I may be wrong, but at present that is my knowledge. Perhaps I will wait and see if anyone can verify that before I alter it.
Politics section
In the 2000 ROC Presidental Election an estimated 10,000 Taiwanese Americans traveled to Taiwan to vote in an election in which the margin of victory was 30,000, and both groups campaigned extensively in the United States and held campaign rallies on Taiwan to welcome their voters.
This sentence sounds as if it's referring to the 2004 ROC Presidential Election instead. --A10203040 13:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Chinese Americans?
The following sentence in the lead is disputed: "Whether Taiwanese Americans also count as Chinese Americans is a controversial political issue."
Are there specific examples of Taiwanese Americans explictly claiming not to be Chinese Americans? The Chinese sense of the term "Chinese American" 美籍華人 applies to Taiwanese Americans as the term for (culturally) "Chinese" 華人 universally and undisputably applies to Taiwanese.--Jiang 00:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are there specific examples of Taiwanese Americans explictly claiming TO BE Chinese Americans? Whether it is "Chinese American" or 美籍華人 (which are essentially the same), due to the political status of Taiwan and Taiwan-China relations. This sentence is necessary to keep NPOV in effect on wikipedia. This is not PA, but how can a Chinese person represent the voice of Taiwanese and universal value as a whole?--Bonafide.hustla 00:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Your response is completely irrelevant. It is obvious that you cannot read Chinese or comprehend the the concept of "Chinese" as it is rendered in the Chinese language. What you are asking me to "prove" is ridiculous, but I'll do it anyways. examples you requested: "Taiwanese Americans make up about 5 percent of the nation's 2.7 million Chinese Americans, according to the latest US Census figures", Chinese Student Association: click on "External VP".--Jiang 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is a chinese conducted survey. Please use a unbiased source. Please do not make false accusations.--Bonafide.hustla 01:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not a Chinese conducted survey. Please cite how "Whether Taiwanese Americans also count as Chinese Americans is a controversial political issue." Can you verify this? Where is the controversy? --Jiang 04:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand your POV. But no POV pushing please.--Bonafide.hustla 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- In the United States census, at least, Taiwanese Americans are considered as part of Chinese Americans and there is no seperate grouping for Taiwanese. And certain prominent Taiwanese, such as Iris Chang, did explicitly consider themselves as Chinese, and named them as so in her book, The Chinese in America. So there's certainly at least some segnment of the populartion who describe themselves as Chinese Americans. --Yuje 12:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is "Chinese" can mean different things, one is ethnic Chinese/Han Chinese, another is citizen of China, and then there's the problem of the definition of "China" itself. LDHan 12:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The discussion is moving off topic. The sentence "whether Taiwanese Americans also count as Chinese Americans is a controversial political issue" serves as a disclaimer and should remain in the article. Please reframe from considering every edit to be politically driven. =D Jumping cheese Contact 05:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with motive of the editor. The statement, as it stands alone, is not verified. I could add "Whether Chinese Americans can be considered true Americans is a controversial political issue" and say the same about verifiability. --Jiang 06:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The Taiwanese and Chinese issue is obviously a controversial issue and a disclaimer is needed to prevent offending Wikipedian on either side of the spectrum. =) Jumping cheese Contact 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- How is it "obviously" a controversial issue? Can you link to websites explaning or demonstrating the controversy? I just don't see it.--Jiang 06:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- You know...the Pan-Blue vs. Pan-Green issue. It’s basically politics. Jumping cheese Contact 06:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- The issue in Taiwanese identity politics is over whether Taiwanese are politically and ethnically Chinese (zhongguoren) or not politically Chinese and only ethnically Chinese (huaren). However, by default and definition, "Chinese American" implies only the latter and makes no implication over the former. "Chinese American" is an ethnic-cultural label, not a political one, unless we speak of being politically American. In Chinese newspapers in America, the terms "overseas Chinese" (huaqiao) or "ethnic Chinese" (huaren) are used to refer to Chinese Americans, inclusive of Overseas Chinese. Ethnic Chinese in America from Singapore still check the "Chinese" label on the US Census form, since there is no "Singaporean" race or ethnicity. (see also Talk:List of Chinese Americans#Ethnicity lists discussion)--Jiang 07:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Although I’m not from Singapore, the last thing I would call myself is Chinese (which is thousands of miles away). Malaysian would be a much more appropriate choice.
Another thing, the article is not going by "ethnic-cultural" or ethnic groups, but nationalities. If Chinese is the ethnic group, then Han Chinese is the only existing label. =D Jumping cheese Contact 02:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Although I’m not from Singapore, the last thing I would call myself is Chinese (which is thousands of miles away). Malaysian would be a much more appropriate choice.
- "Chinese American" is not a nationality. It is used to describe a racial/ethnic group of Americans, ie those with origins/ancestry in China. If you would like more input, post something at Wikipedia:WikiProject China--Jiang 05:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether Chinese American is a nationality or not is irrevelant. People can argue either way. By saying it with a statement of fact is an example of POV pushing. Thank you.--Bonafide.hustla 08:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- How about modifying "Whether Taiwanese Americans also count as Chinese Americans is a controversial political issue." to something like:
- Whether Taiwanese Americans also count as Chinese Americans is a controversial political issue for some Taiwanese Americans. Although "Chinese Americans" is used by most, including the US Census, to mean "ethnic Chinese" ie Han Chinese, some Taiwanese Americans use the term "Chinese Americans" to mean Americans from or of descent from people from China. Therefore they do not include Taiwanese Americans as Chinese Americans because they do not include Taiwan as part of China. LDHan 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds a little too superfluous and has a slight issue of POV. I still believe that the current disclaimer is adequate. =D Jumping cheese Contact 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- From what I've heard and read, the government of Taiwan considers Taiwan to be "the real China". From that perspective, how could Taiwanese Americans NOT be Chinese Americans? Gringo300 03:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Whether Taiwanese Americans count as Chinese Americans is not a controversial issue. As I mentioned before, the US census includes Taiwanese as part of the Chinese American group. So does the government of Taiwan. For example:
- Read the statement by the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission: "I have consistently sought to draw on the resources of the government and the private sector, to strengthen services aimed at overseas Chinese (including Taiwanese), assist in the resolution of overseas development problems, enhance the promotion of Chinese and Taiwanese cultures, encourage overseas people to put down roots and join their local mainstream society, and use various channels of communication to win the hearts of our overseas compatriots." (emphasis added)[1]
- Here's their section on Overseas Chinese: [2] Download their analysis of the number of ethnic Chinese in the USA, and you'll see it explicitly includes Taiwanese in the paper (along with mainlanders and Hong Kongers.
- For an "Overseas Compatriate Identity Certificate", one needs documents showing proof that the applicant is "ethnic Chinese". [3]
To say that it's a controversial issue now requires the burden of proof from those stating it. Otherwise, I propose changing the sentence to:
- Whether Taiwanese Americans count as Chinese Americans is not a controversial issue; both the United States and Taiwanese government statistics for ethnic Chinese in the United States include Taiwanese. [place cites here]
--Yuje 04:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. Since the Taiwanese independence movement started, labeling people in Taiwan as Chinese has become a controversial issue, since it appears to be endorsing a particular political view. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I want you to justify your statement. I've proved that the governments of both the US and Taiwan (ie both the Taiwanese and American parts of Taiwanese American) count them as Chinese Americans. That both governments involved label them as Chinese is a fact, not a POV. If you want to say otherwise or to say it's a controversy, provide a verifiable source. --Yuje 11:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- The reason we are having this discussion should be enough reason on why it's a controversial and political issue. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 10:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I repeat, I want you to show the controversy in a verifiable manner, not as a vague and nebulous claim. From what you claim, any anonymous wikipedian can turn any issue controversial merely by disagreeing with it. I'm not buying that. Source, please. --Yuje 11:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is like the whole Ireland and UK situation...I highly doubt I need sources for that. I'm not buying your act of playing dumb regarding the whole controversy. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 01:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. If it's as obvious as you claim, then you should have absolutely no problem finding such a source. On the other hand, I have provided sources saying the exact opposite of what you are advocating, that the government which controls Taiwan, considers Taiwanese abroad to also be ethnic Chinese (as reflected in the very name of the government agency, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission), that that the US government census, of which Taiwanese Americans are also citizens of, also classifies them as a subgroup of ethnic Chinese. Both of these are simple statements of fact, which you deleted, and yet when I asked for a cite, you seem to be unable to provide one. How do you want to explain yourself?
- I'm not playing dumb regarding any controversy. Political differences don't entail ethnic ones, and as others have pointed out above and elsewhere, even pro-independence groups in Taiwan do not regard reject ethnic Chinese identity or regard it to be controversial. The country of Singapore was never part of China, yet it's also not controversial that 70% of its people are ethnic Chinese. Now, back to you. You claim controversy? I call BS and want to see a source. Justify your statement. --Yuje 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Taiwanese independence supporters consider themselves overseas Chinese (華人). Chinese Americans are also overseas Chinese. I don't see controversy here. It is unfortunate that the English language lacks the specificity to distinguish between the two brands of Chinese (political vs. cultural/overseas).--Jiang 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for comparison's sake, the original version of the page said, "Generally, people from Taiwan do not mind being considered either or both Taiwanese American and Chinese American. However, political extremists exists and those people will have a strong preference for some permutation of Chinese / Taiwanese American.". Certified Gangsta/Bonafide Hustler changed it to the current statement, without a cite. He has never provided it, and refused to provide it even up till now. He changed it and the rest were 27 reverts. How is this concensus building? You've merely been reverting, making allegations against others, and ignoring legitimate sources given by other people. --Yuje 06:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- So you're endorsing the previous version? Stating that it's a controversial issue should not be a problem. Here is an entire page on the political controversy...since you demand it so: Taiwan independence Jumping cheese Cont@ct 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't try to source a wiki with another wiki article. That provides no sources either. If I were to ask you there, you'd probably point me right back to this article. No circular arguments, please. I've provided a government census's position on its own citizens. A government is a notable entity, and the source is verifiable. Justify your deletions of it, instead of leading around in POV circles. Provide an actual verifiable and notable source. --Yuje 00:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- You said, "please settle the issue on the talk page". Well, I've provided it. The government ruling Taiwan counts Taiwanese Americans as a subgroup of Chinese Americans. It's a fact. I've provided the link verifying it. What exactly is "controversial" about this? You're saying the government's position should be completely ignored? The government of the US also counts Taiwanese Americans as a subgroup of Chinese Americans. Also a fact. Also verified. And you? --Yuje 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think a fair amount of strategic ambiguity is called for to maintain peace on this page. As long as no one is disputing the existence of this article, why don't we leave out all references to government sources in the first paragraph? I mean. it is not up to any government to decide on the self-identification (or lack thereof) of any group or subgroup of Americans.--Niohe 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- If so, then the statement about it being controversy should also be taken out from the first paragraph, as well, especially since it isn't sourced. I could live with that. However, someone wants to assert an issue is controversial, then the issue should be presented from multiple views, including the views of the governments involved. --Yuje 01:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the controversy is taking place in front of us isn't it? We can have one sentence stating that the subject is under controversy, followed by a sentence briefly describing the policies of the US, ROC and PRC governments. Sources can be left in the main body of the article itself.--Niohe 01:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I've been trying to do. I haven't touched the controversy sentence, only requested a cite, and followed it up with a sentence briefly describing ROC and US policy. Two users have repeatedly been deleting the sentence describing US and ROC policy. --Yuje 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yuje, This is all getting off topic and obfuscated. I do not believe the line "Both the governments of Taiwan and the United States regard Taiwanese Americans as a subgroup of Chinese Americans" adds anything to the article, not do I believe it is correct. We are playing word games with the word 'Chinese'. The cited references are not credible for this argument. The OCAC citation in Chinese mentions "海外僑胞" and do NOT mention Chinese and Taiwanese separately. The english translation has "overseas Chinese (including Taiwanese)" which is not in the source document. SO I do not think either of these citations are valid in this sense. The census lists chinese and taiwanese as subgroups of chinese. However, it specifically states "except Taiwanese", which I believe that the census considers chinese a racial subgroup of asian, but as a subgroup of chinese , taiwanese are not considered chinese. So the census bureau citation actually support saying that the govt does not consider then the same. I think we should drop all of this before it becomes an edit war as it does not add any thing to the article. I could cite the same census link and say "The US govt considers Taiwanese americans as a separate group from Chinese americans". But that would not add anything to the article either. I think both lines should be removed and let the article stand on references in the content. Wenzi 03:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wenzi, take a look at this link, which is a analysis of ethnic Chinese (華人) in the USA. In the section on immigrants, it includes not just those from the Chinese mainland, but also Hong Kong and Taiwan. Now, at the census link: It shows Chinese as a subgroup of Asian, and Taiwanese as a subgroup of Chinese. I was concerned about the state of the article because certain users were trying to politicize the issue by inserting their own POVs. For example, this edit, by Jumping Cheese, where he kept on trying to remove the Chinese American categories by labeling them as "controversial", even though she refers to herself as a Chinese American and not a Taiwanese American. Another is David Wu, who self-identifies as Chinese American. However, Gangster here repeatedly insisted on removing that and calling him only a Taiwanese American. --Yuje 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, thanks for digging up my old edits from over half an year ago (kind of scary) and using it as an ad hominem argument. I eventually added the source to the Chao page that Jiang found in which Chao explicitly states that she's "Chinese American" so the label could be justified. See the extensive discussion I had regarding Chao: Talk:Elaine Chao#Taiwanese?. You (with a pointy finger) are "trying to politicize the issue" by making a clear stance on the identity of people from Taiwan/ROC. I don't understand what is soooo offensive about stating an issue is controversial?!? Jumping cheese Cont@ct 07:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- And what is soooo controversial about asking you to provide a source? Because that's exactly what you labeled my edit in which I asked for a cite. Which you still have not provided. --Yuje 07:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh...and thanks for recruiting Jiang to participate in the discussion. Nothing wrong with that (or is there, I think I remember a policy against that), but recruit users from both side of the debate, not only your side. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 07:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I knew you would keep trying reverting until the threat of breaking the 3RR would finally bring you to talk. So why exactly are you still dancing around the issue of you not providing a cite to justify your claims? And why are you deleting the government stance on the issue?--Yuje 07:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- You assume a lot of bad faith. You were the one that started making controversial edits before a consensus was formed. [4] The problem with providing a source is the same with finding a source for proving abortion or the Iraq War are controversial issues. You have people disagreeing, but no source explicitly stating "this is a controversial topic". Jumping cheese Cont@ct 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- In contrast, your statement, "I highly doubt I need sources for that. I'm not buying your act of playing dumb regarding the whole controversy" is such a magnaminous act of good faith, I'm sure. Go look at Opposition to the Iraq War or Criticism of George W. Bush or any similar articles. Almost every assertion in those articles is appropriately cited, and yet you can't find a single one. Please stop dancing around the issue and provide a source that says what you're saying, or else you're simplying spouting original research. --Yuje 01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Another example of gang patrolling by Chinese editor against NPOV editors. Do you know how many people in the general public rely on wikipedia for information?? We need to educate westerners that Taiwanese and Chinese are totally different. Of course, Chinese will argue differently, that's why it's controversial.--Certified.Gangsta 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- And here, Certified.Gangsta reveals his bias, facts be damned. Of course, he won't provide a source, and he ignores the sources that say the opposite, but when has that ever stopped him? Just look at this edit [5] of his. Iris Chang explicitly named Taiwanese Americans as Chinese Americans in her book, The Chinese in America, and explicitly calls herself a Chinese American. So does Wen Ho Lee, who has said that his Chinese ethnicity was a source of bias that led to him being scapegoated. Or look at Jerry Yang. He's a member of the Committe of 100, a Chinese American organization. Do a Google search on him. He's named as a Chinese American by prominant magazines like Businessweek and Asianweek. Or this edit on Elaine Chao. Mrs. Chao says, and I quote, "Well, as a Chinese American, as an American of Chinese descent, I have, perhaps, a special view about the competitiveness in a situation..." Apparently, he thinks his views on identity are stronger that those of the named subjects themselves.--Yuje 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seriously, please stop editing the page until a consensus is formed. Edit wars are hardly any fun. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 09:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd certainly like that, which is why I'm here. I hope Certified.Gansta does the same, as well. Unlikely though. A quick glance into the page history shows he's had 20+ reverts. In other words, his reverts outnumber his talk page comments, not a good sign for someone who repeatedly reverts with quotes like "see the talk page, dude". By the way, Jumping_cheese, any closer to coming up with the asked-for sources yet?--Yuje 09:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- See my reply above. It'll be a good idea to revert to the version that didn't spark all this discussion...then make the edit when we finally agree or find something better to do. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so let's discuss, then. Why do you disagree with the link I posted? Do you disagree with the link I posted, and why, and what do you propose to replace it with, if anything? --Yuje 00:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have a few things to say. [1] The links Yuje are not conclusive. They talk about "華人" ( ethnic Chinese ) , which leads me to [2] I think we are still going around the word 'Chinese'. We can say "Chinese American " 美籍華人" , which is an american of chinese ethnic decent, or "Chinese American" 美籍中國人" which is an american of chinese national decent. The edit do not make a distinction [3] S'poreans often call themselves "華人" ( ethnic Chinese ) , but they rarely call themselves Chinese Americans in the US. ( I have never heard it anyway ) [4] I recruited someone who I thought would be somewhat neutral. My apologies, I didn't know there was a policy against that. [5] Talk is good, let's go back to the version before this started and reach consensus here Wenzi 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which part of the US are you from? I'm from San Francisco, which contains a very large number of ethnic Chinese from the Southeast Asian countries, like Vietnam, and a lot of them consider themselves both Chinese and Vietnamese, or as Chinese Americans. I gave Singapore as an example of "華人" ( ethnic Chinese ), but I'm not aware of a large Singaporean population in the USA and I've never heard the term "Singaporean American" before, probably because there aren't a lot. The Taiwan political issue seems to revolve around whether or not Taiwanese are part of China (中國人), but that has nothing to do with Chinese Americans, since they are American citizens and thus they are all ethnic Chinese (華人) but not citezens of China (中國人).--Yuje 00:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which type of "ethnic Chinese"? I think the problem here is a difference in terminology. For example, all the links provided are example of overseas Chinese...not of nationality. If based on nationality (as with "hyphened Americans" ie. "Irish-American") as this article does, then the ethnicity of Taiwanese Americans is not a factor. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 01:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since all these "hyphened Americans" are based on self-identification, it is where/if/what type of chinese they feel they are. So if we stated something like "Some taiwanese Americans feel they are both Taiwanese Americans and overseas Chinese while others identify themselves as taiwanese american only" Wenzi 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Something like that. Since the page is based on nationality...the whole issue of Taiwan being considered its own country or as part of greater PRC comes into play. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. eg Arab American, African American, Scots-Irish American, etc.--Jiang 09:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Since most Taiwanese consider Chinese to be the enemy, I don't see why Taiwanese would ever consider themselves Chinese, except for some Civil War veteran.--Certified.Gangsta 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- ?!? Anyways...the issue has not settled yet, so why did you revert back to the version that sparked all this arguing? Jumping cheese Cont@ct 05:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:RS. A reliable source is being cited. This debate is being perpetuated by a misunderstanding of the concepts of ethnic Chinese and the Chinese state, as I see several users have tried to explain already.
- Because it is a debate premised on a misunderstanding, and one in which one side fails to produce any reliable sources, it is not a debate to which Wikipedia defers: Wikipedais is premised on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR.
- Let me spell it out for you: whether Taiwan is considered part of the "PRC" or not is completely irrelevant. Taiwan is a majority ethnically Chinese country/state/province/island/whatever you want to call it. That is enough. This debate keeps on repeating itself, due to a misunderstanding about the concepts of Chinese ethnicity versus Chinese nationality.
- Until there are some verifiable, reliable sources being quoted that are not original research, the old version stays.
- Specifically, if you are saying somehow that the Taiwanese are not ethnic Chinese (NOT the same concept as Chinese national), you will need a cite for that. --Sumple (Talk) 08:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Taiwanese Canadian
There a good amount of info regarding Taiwanese Canadians, so I'm creating a new page and moving the info over. =D Jumping cheese Contact 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Protection
Please talk the lead paragraph definition through here and stop edit warring. It's not productive to keep reverting each other, 3RR or no. --Nlu (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Contradictory image?
Maybe it's just me, but I find the caption of this image to be somewhat ironic considering that the shopping mall in question has the words "Hong Kong" on it. -Loren 05:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Taiwanese Americans and Taiwanese Aborigines
Would Taiwanese Aborigines who moved to America and became American citizens be labelled as "Taiwanese Americans"? They are definitely NOT Chinese in the sense that is usually thought of. Doesn't that open up a whole other can of worms about whether Taiwanese Americans are Chinese Americans? Gringo300 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- There are many different perspectives in Taiwan as well as China. 1. ROC ceased to exist after communist rebellion, therefore Taiwan is part of China. 2. 2 countries: ROC and PRC, Taiwanese are Chinese. 3. Both the Japanese and Chinese are invaders of Taiwan, therefore other than mainlanders, all Taiwanese are not Chinese.--Certified.Gangsta 18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- (Warning: unsourced comments that probably dont belong in the article) The aboriginials that I am remotely aware of seem to have adopted Han names and accepted themselves as Chinese. Keep in mind that textbooks (at least until recently) promoted Zhonghua minzu and aboriginals overwhelmingly support the Kuomintang. less so for Mongols or Tibetans, just as much (and perhaps even more) so for Manchus (who have largely assimilated).--Jiang 09:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)