Talk:Chinese Americans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jiang Zemin

Just deleted a paragraph concerning Chinese politicians such as Jiang Zemin having been educated in the United States. To me, this had little relevance to the content of the article.

as Americans do in America.

This statement: " few do not pass down the traditions to their children and prefer their offsprings to live as Americans do in America." needs some work, it seems to imply that Americans live 1 certain way and that Chineese Americans who live differently aren't really Americans. Rewording would be better.

I removed "Chinese in ***" from the "See Also" section because they are covered under "Overseas Chinese groups". It removes the clutter I see in that section.

Nothing to do with Chinese Americans

This really has nothing to do with Chinese-Americans

Many non-caucasian American citizens suffer similar mistreatment simply because of the color of their skin or their religion. For example, Japanese American were locked up in internment camps despite they were American citizens sworn to be loyal to the USA. Many Islamic American citizens were attacked by other Americans after the September 11 terrorist attack. Despite anti-discrimination laws in the USA, racial inequality still goes on everyday. The only comforting thought is that the victims can sue in the court of law if they survive.

Also I have problems with the ethnicity/politics distinction. Many Chinese-Americans try to make a clean separation between ethnicity and politics, but many do not. Many of the political leaders of Taiwan, for example, had at one point American citizenship.

The list should probably be in a separate article, List of famous Chinese-Americans, for instance. But no matter where it is, it really needs to be in alphabetical order. -- Zoe 03:12 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Chen Shui Bian

You know what I found interesting? The now beleagured Taiwanese president Chen Shui-Bian (陳水扁), who is involved in a corruption and graft scandal in Taiwan, is believed to have U.S. citizenship. It is quite possible that he may flee to the United States to avoid potential prosecution, if not Japan (due to his close ties with the Japanese government). Jhung 00:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dash

I propose to move this to Chinese American (without the dash). "Chinese" should be an adjetive used to describe the particular type of "American." "Chinese-American" sounds like a hybrid between a Chinese and an American, which is a bad representation. And for this matter, Asian-American and all the other "-American"'s should be moved to. --Jiang 06:19 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

See hyphenated American.--Ruthless4Life 10:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Chinese-American" should be used when it describing a noun, such as "Chinese-American students." "Chinese American" should be used when it is not be using as an adjective. AmasianCrasian 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"This experience has added richness to the American experience and is a triumphant story of the pursuit of the American Dream."

This doesn't sound encyclopaedic.

I concur. I believe that term "American" should be avoided; instead, use "U.S." or "United States." "American dream" is acceptable because it refers to a particular historic era of and a concept of the United States. AmasianCrasian 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

美籍華人 vs. 華裔美國人

I think 美籍華人 is more common and that's what we should use. The Chinese-language wiki entry is called "美籍華人". Hong Qi Gong 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the more common term should be used here. The two terms means the same thing. Unlike the equivalent English term, the two Chinese terms explicitly point out which part is nationality (國籍=美) and which part is ethnicity (族裔=華), hence flipping the two parts in the name around does not alter the meaning. Kowloonese 20:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who added the Chinese for the article, "Chinese American." I justified the term 美籍華人 for two reasons: 美籍華人 is more standard in written Chinese; and the other reason being that 美籍華人 implies a sense that is inclusive of both first-generation Chinese Americans and subsequent generations of Chinese Americans. I would also tend to side with the four-character compound, as it is less verbose (and colloquial), and four-character compounds are regarded highly in Chinese.

The term in Chinese is relevant to the article, considering the large numbers of first-generation Chinese Americans living in the United States. The term is appropriate for this entry as this is similar in significance to the Japanese terms issei and nisei.

Hmains, to fill you in and anyone else who does not have proficiency in the Chinese language, what is being discussed are two different Chinese character compounds for "Chinese American." The first one translates literally into "American registered as one of Chinese ethnicity." The second term being discussed with five characters means "an American of Chinese descendance." AmasianCrasian 00:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

蒙籍华人, "朝籍华人" "美籍華人" Terms like these are best avoided

The two terms are different. 美籍華人 stresses the ethnicity while 華裔美國人 stresses the nationality, in the sense of citizenship. Stressing ethnic groups in individual countries, such as "Chinese" Americans, "Korean" Chinese, "German" Brazilians, etc. can easily give rise to disputes. If we were to identify Americans of Chinese ancestry as "美籍華人", then we should do the same for those of Irish, British, French, Japanese, German, Korean, Ethipian, etc etc.

Furthermore, terms like 美籍華人 are sino-centric. They may be appropriate in some cases, such as articles about China, they should not be used in articles about other countries. In discussing China, which is also a multi=ethnic country, we do not use terms like "朝籍华人" to descrive Chinese of Korean ethnicity, or 蒙籍华人 for mongolian-chinese, etc.

The term is only sino-centric because... It's a Chinese term! That's the most commonly used term. It's used in Chinese-language newspapers in the US. Hong Qi Gong 05:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the term 美籍華人 should be avoided for the Wikipedia article titled "Chinese American." The article "Chinese American" surveys exclusively Americans of Chinese descent, not those of different nationalities. AmasianCrasian 00:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we avoid attaching Chinese translations like these in the English version. Debates on proper translations could be left to the Chinese Wikipedia. The Chinese versions do not contain English translations of 美籍華人 or 華裔美國人, and there is no reason to attach foreign translations of English terms here, Those are more properly handled in the Wiktionary.

If the editors insist on keeping the Chinese, I strongly argue in favor of 華裔美國人 which is closest in meaning to Chinese American (US Citizen of Chinese descent). The term 美籍華人 means a Chinese person who has US citizenship, but stresses the Chineseness, not the fact that the person is a citizen of the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unispace (talk • contribs)

1. Firstly, 美籍華人 is more common usage and the Chinese Wikipedia uses this term.
2. Secondly, who is to say that stressing "Chineseness" is not better? Many first or even second generation Chinese Americans would probably prefer that.
3. Thirdly, the Chinese version of the article should have an English translation of the term. In fact, I'll go add it myself.
4. And finally, we could just simply include both terms and put the disagreement to rest. Hong Qi Gong 06:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with HongQiGong. Not only is 美籍華人 more formal and more appropriate for encyclopedia usage, but the Chinese Wikipedia uses 美籍華人. I feel that if term is to be kept, 美籍華人 should be entry for the sake of consistency. 美籍華人 is used commonly in Mainland China and Hong Kong, while 華裔美國人 is commonly used in Taiwan. I don't see why a Chinese term shouldn't be added; the Japanese American Wikipedia article has issei and nisei (in Chinese symbols/kanji) definitions. AmasianCrasian 18:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jiang - is there a reason you do not want to include both of the terms? Or why did you edit out 華裔美國人 after I added it? Hong Qi Gong 06:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia uses 美籍華人, which is more standard in Mainland China and Hong Kong. If this term is to be kept, I suggest that for the sake of consistency to keep it 美籍華人.

sorry, I didn't notice the change....i just saw the template missing. I've never heard of 華裔美國人 before. Do we really need to have the Chinese here? "Chinese American" is a stand-alone term in English and was not derived from the Chinese. Maybe a separate sentence introducing the Chinese terms would be better. --Jiang 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe 美籍華人 is a more common term since that's what I see in Chinese-language newspapers in the US. I prefer just having that one term. But some people insist on using 華裔美國人 instead. Hong Qi Gong 02:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I largely agree with the original comment that the Chinese is unnecessary. Neither of the Chinese terms are a translation of "Chinese American". the "X American" is a naming convention used by different groups in the US, the Chinese term means "American overseas Chinese". Putting the Chinese term seems a bit contrived. What's next, having a Chinese term for ABC as well? --Yuje 08:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

English encyclopedia

I request that this discussion continue in English, the language of this Encyclopedia, so that all editors can know what is being discussed. Thanks Hmains 16:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I am removing the word Taiwanese on this article since whether Taiwanese American are Chinese American is controversial see Political status in Taiwan. And therefore any indication of Taiwan in this article without acknowledging the fact that Taiwanese-Chinese is a controversial issue are POV edits and therefore be removed.--Bonafide.hustla 21:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the English encyclopedia should be in English, adding Chinese translations is distracting and controversial. Likewise, entries in the Chinese encyclopedia do not need Englaish translations. THe term huayi meiguo ren in the Chinese version does not have an English translation so why in the world do we need a Chinese translation here, or elsewhere?

Jason Lee

Chinese Americans include Japanese Americans?

This is news to me. Please cite your sources.--Jiang 03:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The difinition of Japanese American includes the ability to be able to trace ancestry to... Therefore, many Chinese Americans - partially due to the mass rapes that occured in Nanking and the numerous Chinese Comfort Women used by Japanese soldiers - can trace their ancestry to Japan.--Blog Mav Rick 03:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please back this up with accurate evidence. How many of these rapes led to pregancies that were carried to term? What proportion do these children and their descendants constitute in the Chinese population? What proportion do these children and their descendants immigrated to the United States? Many? Given the number of rapes, and not counting the number of pregancies, this just cannot be true.--Jiang 03:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Americans voting democrat

I think this is actually only in the past couple of presidential elections. Actually I am not 100% sure of Chinese Americans specifically, but a majority of Asian Americans as a whole voted for Reagon and also voted against Clinton on both of Clinton's elections. But they've voted against Bush Jr. in both of his elections. Hong Qi Gong 03:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually lots of Chinese Americans voted for Dubya. -- Миборовский 19:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. What I mean is that the majority voted against him. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? While I don't have any hard statistics, where I live most of the Chinese American families I know voted Republican (or were likely to have voted Republican). And I live in Gay Acceptance Capital USA. Of course, it could be that most Chinese I know here are fundie Christians... -- Миборовский 23:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure. The AALDEF conducted its own exit polls of the 2004 presidential election, broken down by ethnicity. It showed that 24% of Chinese Americans voted for Bush and 72% voted for Kerry[1]. Another good source of information is the PNAAPS, which also shows that Chinese Americans are more likely to identify as liberal and democrat, as opposed to conservative and republican. I don't know if the PNAAPS numbers can be found on the web, but I do I have the book The Politics of Asian Americans (a book I highly recommend as a reference book) which publishes the PNAAPS numbers and basically provides an analysis of the PNAAPS. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was the hyphen unilaterally reinserted?

It had been removed since July 2003 (see [2]) on the perfectly valid grounds that the preferred form by members of the group in question is non-hyphenated. I also hadn't been aware of any consensus being reached on the discussion in question: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_14#unhyphenated-American cab 09:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back until a concensus is reached. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ethnic groups of china

there are 56 recognized ethnic groups in china. however, when a lot of people talk about "the chinese", they are referring to the han ethnic group. "chinese americans" probably is also usually referring to members of the han ethnic group who are americans. Gringo300 04:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are plenty of non-Han who identify as Chinese. It's a fact that some of them migrated overseas (for example, Hui migration to Southeast Asia is well-documented; see Panthay or [3]); it's highly likely that some of them ended up in America. Unless you can find a reliable source saying that there are zero Hui, Zhuang, She, Manchu, etc. descendants living in the US and identifying themselves as "Chinese American", then stating that "Chinese Americans are Han Chinese living in the US" constitutes original research. cab 11:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think both of you are correct, but the two of you are talking about two different criterias to determine what "kind" of Chinese is Chinese American. User:Gringo300 seems to be talking about how North American society views only the Han Chinese as "Chinese", and User:CaliforniaAliBaba seems to be approaching the matter from self-identification. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Gringo300 is wrong. To cite an example, Wu'er Kaixi, who is an Uyghur Muslim, is internationally recognized as "Chinese", i.e., as someone with Chinese nationality. After fleeing China for the U.S., he later settled down and married a Han Chinese woman in Taiwan. The term "Chinese" can either mean nationality or ethnicity: "Chinese American" can either mean a U.S. Citizen of Han Chinese ethnicity or a U.S. Citizen whose national origin is China. Anti beast (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Translation, revisited

I removed the Chinese translation because it is unecessary and distracting. If we started adding translations for all types of Americans (Japanese, Korean, Indian, Vietnamese, Irish, etc.) we would be doing our readers a disfavor. Perhaps the wiktionary would serve that purpose. Unispace

I've added it back in because it is informative and useful. I think all the other types of Americans ought to have similar translations, if applicable. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a multi language dictionary. Adding translations of this nature serves no useful purpose. Furthermore, the term does not derive from Chinese. And the english word "chinese" is very broad in scope, referring to a political entity, as in (People's Republic of China/Republic of China), a geographical region (as used during the Manchu and Mongolian empires to describe part of the region under their control, the Han ethnic group, etc. Therefore, I recommend that we avoid adding translations, especially controversial translations, unless necessary to help clarify the English meaning. Unispace

Whether or not the term derived from Chinese is irrelevant. The translation is the equivalent term used in Chinese. And most Chinese-related articles here on the English Wikipedia have translations of terms. Furthermore, whether or not "Chinese American" is or should be a geo-political entity, at the very least, is debatable. Not to mention, that is also irrelevant to the fact that the translation is just that - a translation. --- Hong Qi Gong 05:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The only reason for adding a Chinese term is that the English term was originally a Chinese term. Readin (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding translations will just add to the diffulties we already have, especially with controversial articles. Regarding the "Chinese American", there is already enough controversy over the English text. If you want to debate Chinese terminology,please do so on the Chinese wiki.

And the Chinese term 美籍华人 is not the equivalent of Chinese-American. I have therefore deleted it. There is a more accurate translation (中国血统的美国人）, but it would serve no useful purpose to start adding translations to English entries. They could be linked, however to articles as interlanguage links.

--- Diplomate 06:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The translation is useful, so I have re-added it. And you will notice that most Chinese-related topics on the English Wikipedia have translations for terms. Also, 美籍華人 is the common Chinese term for Chinese Americans. This is the term used by Chinese-language newspapers in the US. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding personal translations is not useful and only distracts from the English. Furthermore, translating this entry as 美籍華人 is not very accurate. Granted, some Chinese citizens, and the Chinese government use that term for political purposes, in order to promote the notion that citizens of the United States of Chinese descent should serve their so-called "motherland". But from the American point of view, Chinese-Americans are US citizens, just like Americans from other backgrounds. If you insist in sticking translations in this article, and if the Wikipedia community supports such practices, then I suggest you use the term "中国血统的美国人", which is much closer to the meaning of Chinese American as used in the United States. But I strongly recommend against this practice or the English Wikipedia could be overloaded with translations of every term that relates to China, France, Russia, or any other country. I also note that the Chinese Wikipedia does not contain English translations for terms that relate to the United States, or French for France related topics. So let us focus on the content of the articles and forget about adding translations. After all, this is not a dictionary.

As I've kept reiterating, 美籍華人 is the term commonly used in Chinese-language newspapers in the US. It is also the name of the article in the Chinese Wikipedia. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As I explained on several occasions, the English term "Chinese American" is not the same as the Chinese term "美籍華人". The fact that a given Chinese term is used in certain Chinese-language newspapers in the US or elsewhere is irrelevant. There is indeed an article entitled "美籍華人" in the Chinese Wikipedia, but there is considerable controversy as to who is included in that category of persons, ie "Han" people, all ethnic groups in the PRC, or any US citizen with Han surnames, etc. Fortunatelly, nobody has attempted to add English translations to such terms in the Chinese Wikipedia.

If there is a consensus that Chinese translation need to be included for all English articles relating to China, even indirectly, than we would have to establish a mechanism for assuring accurate translations. "美籍華人" is certainly not accurate for this article, I have therefore deleted it. --- Unispace 25 August 2006

Your contention with 美籍華人 is not so much that it's inaccurate. The term conveys American citizenship. Your contention is really that you think the emphasis on 華人 vs. American citizenship is incorrect. The fact that 美籍華人 is a commonly used term makes it very relevant, and more relevant than what you think is emphasized in the term. In fact, 美籍華人 is more accurate than 華裔美國人 because it is specific on citizenship. I'm not sure what your concern is with the ambiguity of what ethnicities of people are included in this group. The same ambiguity exists with or without a Chinese translation of the name of the article, and whether or not that translation is 美籍華人. And also, there are English translations on the Chinese version of the article. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

美籍華人 is an accurate translation for this article. There fore I have added it back in. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to add - in the face and availability of a commonly used Chinese term as a translation for something like "Chinese American", editors' personal opinions that these translations are inaccurate are basically original research. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Granted, 美籍華人 is commonly used in Chinese media. However, that is a politicaly charged term, encouraged by governments in the PRC and Taiwan bent on creating the illusion of a worldwide "Chinese nation". There is nothing wrong with that - many goverments do similar things to promote nationalism and to gain support and cash from overseas. However, that term is substantially different in meaning and nuance from the English term "Chinese American" as used in the United States. An American would not normally use such an expression to refer to his/her compatriots of Chinese descent.

The Chinese-language papers in the USA are notorious for their ethno-centric attitude. For example, they frequently use expressions such as “中外”(Chinese and foreigners) when describing US citizens or people living in the US - - they even frequently refer to Black and White Americans as "foreigners" while Yellow Americans are "Asians" and those with any racial connection to China as 華人 (Chinese, or Hua people). We should not allow such terms to propagate in Wikipedia, especially when they are in another language, ie Chinese terms on the English Wikipedia and vice-versa. Therefore, I have deleted the inaccurate translations. It does not appear that the views expressed on either of these translations are original research. The issue is more related to political/ideological positions. It is best that we leave these translations out - they do not add value to the English article, which is already controversial enough. --- Unispace 07:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What you've said here - about the term being essentially political propaganda by the PRC and ROC governments, and determining that Chinese-language newspapers in North America are ethnocentric because of the terms they use - that would be the original research that I'm talking about. I've re-inserted the term because it is an accurate translation. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a wat to resolve the debate is to find some sources authored by prominent Chinese Americans and see how they translate the term "Chinese American" in Chinese. Honestly, though, it makes sense to include the original langauge terms for English translations and romanizations of Chinese names, but in this case, the English term is original while the Chinese term is a translation. Add this to the fact that many second and third generation Chinese Americans may not speak fluent Chinese if at all, and many who are fluent are not necessarily Chinese-literate, and that most of them would not describe themselves with the terms given on this page, and the "importance" of including the Chinese term seems less and less clear. Keep in mind also that they're Americans first and foremost, and that while all Chinese Americans can speak English, not all can speak Chinese. --Yuje 07:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We actually don't know that the English is an original term and that the Chinese is a translation of that. We can say with a certain amount of certainty that "Chinese American" came from "Asian American", which in turn was coined in the 60s. However, Chinese people with American citizenship had existed for at least as far back as United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. The term "美籍華人" has probably existed long before the term "Chinese American".

And Chinese-language newspapers in the US do already reflect what Chinese Americans call themselves in Chinese. The people who work at these newspapers are Chinese Americans. They live and work in the US. Furthermore, Google hits yield many more hits for "美籍華人"[4] than it does for "華裔美國人"[5] or "中國血統的美國人"[6].

Also, while later generations of Chinese Americans may not speak Chinese, according to the census, more than half of the Chinese American population are, in fact, foreign-born. But Chinese fluency of Chinese Americans is irrelevant here. The article isn't written only for Chinese Americans to read. The translation is informative. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The translations are distracting and innacurate. As an American of Chinese ancestry who speaks some Chinese, I resent the term 美籍華人 because it sounds like a Chinese person who got US citizenship. US Citizens are supposed to be loyal to their country. Anyway, I edited the silly translation out.

Richard Chao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 2006-09-04 06:22:06

The translations are useful and accurate. And your personal resentment of the term is of no importance compared to the fact that it's a commonly used term. Anyway, I have re-inserted the important translation in. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't provide translations for every topic remotely related to a place, culture or language. We provide translations names where the person or place's original name is not English. And we provide translations when an English word is representing a foreign word that is used in English, particularly if the English use of the word is to represent the original foreign concept. For example, we provide the Chinese versions of place names like Shanghai, Kowloon, and Beijing, but not San Francisco. We provide Japanese versions for words like sushi and issei and the Chinese word mahjong, but no Chinese translation for the movie title "Shanghai Noon" nor do we have any translation for "chopsticks". Readin (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I got an email

Someone emailed me:

Hello,

Just thought I would ask you to stop adding controversial Chinese translations to the English Wikipedia. You should post Chinese on the Chinese Wikipedia. I was reading the debate about "Chinese Americans", which is interesting in English. By trying to impose Chinese translations you distract from the main article which is not helpful. If you are really interested in translating, I suggest you check out the Wiktionary, or some of the newer forks of that project. Let us keep the English Wikipedia as a useful ENGLISH encyclopedia. I welcome your feedback.

Xiuquan

To Xiuquan: I disagree that the Chinese translations distract from the main article. The translations are only a tiny portion of the article, and I feel they are useful. Most of the articles about Chinese-related articles on the English WP contain translations of terms. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To HongQiGong: I disagree. The translations are distracting, and more importantly, not accurate. If the community decides that translations are essential, then we should find terms that truly reflect the original English meanings. In this case, Chinese American should certainly not be translated into "美籍華人". While the term is frequently used in Chinese language publications, it is not the same as the English term. It may be that there is no Chinese equivalent, ie that the English meaning falls between the suggested Chinese equivalents. In such cases, one should refer to an authoritative dictionary and choose the best equivalent based on context. In other words, the Wikipedia is not the place to suggest translations - to start doing this would only lead to further controversy and disputes. --- Xiuquan 09:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The translations are useful, informative, and accurate. But I'll insert 華裔美國人 also to try to put the dispute to rest. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Different Chinese American identities" section needs to be improved

I agree. Helen Zia (2000) maintains in her book "Asian American Dreams" that, in early 20th century, Chinese Americans were condemned for not assimilating, standing in sharp contrast to the criticism of Japanese Americans that they adopted the American customs too well. After reading Zia' book, I have to doubt the neutrality of the "non-assimilating" claim about Chinese Americans. What is the evidence showing that? This kind of stereotyping really shouldn't persist in today's "melt-pot" society, where each individual's cultural elements are increasingly recognized and valued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xuejuns (talk • contribs)

That entire section looks like crap, and it's looked like crap for a while now. I propose getting rid of the whole thing until we find some good sources that discuss identity issues of Chinese Americans. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The section on identity is probably referencable with a few Chinese American history books, such as the ones written by Suchen Chan, or Iris Chang, or others. I'm not that well-read in Chinese American history, but if anyone interested cares to go to a library to check them out, I'm sure they can be referenced. I agree that the section as written was badly organized and poorly written, though. --Yuje 04:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Major Contributions

   * Building Western half of the Transcontinental railroad
   * Building levees in the Sacramento River Delta
   * Developing and cultivating much of the Western US farmland
   * Chinese food

Could use a little help, I think. I would delete the section, but it (the section) should be there, I think.

• How about contributions in science and technology (what with all those Nobel Prize winners...)?
• Also contributions in arts and letters (Maxine Hong Kingston, Amy Tan, Joan Chen, I.M. Pei...)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.108.125 (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Many of those people and their contributions are in the article Asian American.--Parkwells (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Asian Americans and other lists nominated for deletion

List of Asian Americans and a whole bunch of other lists have been nominated for deletion. If you have an opinion, please vote at the AfD.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Asian Americans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Korean Americans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cambodian Americans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filipino Americans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hmong Americans

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 12 for all the lists that have been nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Earlier Decades"

The following sentence was recently added, "The Chinese who immigrated to America in the earlier decades were mainly from the area of Guangdong (Canton) and later Hong Kong.". It is unclear when "the earlier decades" were, and there is no reference given for looking it up. The sentence needs to be clarified or removed.Readin (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Three Pictured Chinese-Americans

Two of the three are actually Taiwanese (Chao and Yang), sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.138.61 (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly both have claimed they are Chinese at some point. I suppose Yang did it for business reasons, though he may have other reasons as well. I believe I've heard that Chao's parents were from China, so the family was only in Taiwan for a short time. Whatever their reasons, the general policy for Wikipedia when it comes to identifying a person's ethnic group is to give that person's self-identification very heavy weight. If they say they're Chinese Americans, we say they're Chinese Americans. If they change their minds and decide they are Bolivian Americans, we say they're Bolivian Americans.Readin (talk)

This article has become a racist joke

This article has become little more than a reinforcement of popular myths and is highly patronising to many people around the globe as a result. In particular, this article:

1.Falsely implies that most Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples are of Chinese ethnicity. In fact nothing else can be further from the truth.

That's because most of them consider themselves to be. Ethnicity like race is a social construct and there is really no objective definition of who belongs to what ethnicity. The best you can do is to descript rather than proscribe. What do people call themselves and think of themselves as. In some situations, I'm white. In others, I'm Chinese, Zhejianese, or Taiwanese Roadrunner (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The original inhabitants of Guangdong, Fujian and Taiwan were not Han Chinese, they were the Hundred Yue peoples in South China and Malayo-Polynesian tribes in Taiwan. The original inhabitants of Europe were not present-day Europeans either, they were Celtic tribes. So what is your point? Prior to the founding of the Chinese State by Qin Shi Huang Di, Han Chinese migrated in large numbers to South China and formed distinct Kingdoms. After the establishment of the Han Dynasty, the Chinese State adopted Classical Confucianism as the Official State Ideology and created the Mandarin Scholar-Official Class. The six other Kingdoms conquered by King Zheng of the Qin State were annexed to become part of China and all the subject peoples residing therein -- whether Han Chinese or not -- became Chinese. Anti beast (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, their ancestors were the victims of one of the worst genocides in world history at the hands of various Chinese armies. Once subjugated, the existences of distinct Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese ethnic identities (as opposed to 'regional' identities) were 'conveniently' forgotten by most people in the world (and tragically to this day). Thus from this point of view, the label of Chinese ethnicity was a brutal imposition upon the Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples against the wills of the said local peoples.

Not true at all. In fact, China today grants the ethnic minorities living in South China considerable autonomy. Guanxi which borders Guangdong is home to the Miao people for example. Same thing with the Malayo-Polynesians in Taiwan. Genocide? The Han Chinese intermarried with whatever indigenous tribes were living there. And Taiwanese culture today is an amalgamation of Han Chinese and Malayo-Polynesian cultures indigenous to Taiwan. The best evidence of this is Taiwanese cuisine today. If you want to see the victims of the worst genocide in world history, I suggest you go to Latin America. But that's another story. Anti beast (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

2.Implies that Taiwan is part of China. The reality is that Taiwan is **NOT** part of China and will never be for the foreseeable future. Over the past several millennia, the Taiwanese have maintained a distinct ethnic identity totally separate from the Chinese ethnicity. Therefore, to describe the Taiwanese as 'Chinese' is not merely wrong; it is downright offensive.

To some people (like me) to describe Taiwanese as "not Chinese" is offensive. The idea that Taiwanese maintain an ethnic identity separate from Chinese would be a surprise to me, my wife, and every Taiwanese that I know. Again describe, don't proscribe. Roadrunner (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Taiwanese are widely recognized to be part of the Minnan-speaking people together with the Hokkiens in Fujian Province and Southeast Asia. For Taiwanese to claim a separate national identity based on their Minnan dialect and Taiwanese culture does not make sense because both their Minnan dialect and Taiwanese culture are universally recognized as Chinese. Anti beast (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

3.Fails to make any real distinctions between the concepts of ancestry and ethnicity whatsoever. There is more to ethnicity than simply being descended from a particular ancestor. Naturally, ethnic identities evolve and may even change over time (but not counting genocides). One could even argue that the concept of ancestry is nothing more than a political and social misconstruct since a recent scientific study has proven beyond reasonable doubt that all modern humans were descended from Africans.

The concept of ethnicity is also usually nothing more than a political and social construct, but this is an encyclopedia, and the purpose is to describe the ethnic grouping that people use. Roadrunner (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, most of the native Taiwanese hails from Fujian Province having migrated along with Zheng Chenggong's troops when he led an armed expedition to expel the white rulers of then Formosa (now Taiwan). So, the native Taiwanese (like Chen Shui Bian) are Han Chinese both in ethnicity and ancestry. Anti beast (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The above points, in particular, MUST be taken seriously. Someone who is an expert on the subject matter of this article must edit this article IMMEDIATELY to remove the blatant biases in the article (including population figures).

Note: I would have attempted to correct some of the biases in the article, but owing to the fact that most of the required references are very difficult to obtain (and generally not found on the internet), I have called for an expert to fix the article instead.122.105.145.169 (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Are Taiwanese Americans NOT Chinese Americans as well?

I just came across the web page [[7]] and it has rather nasty things to say about the misrepresentation of Taiwanese identity. I draw every editors' attention to one particular sentence in the source.

A great majority of Taiwanese-Americans have strong emotional attachment to their homeland [Taiwan] and actually feel insulted if they are called Chinese-Americans.

Yes, the source is indeed from a Taiwanese independence website but somehow I believe that the claim is valid (in spite of the somewhat dodgy wording 'great majority'). Any opinions on this? 122.105.146.168 (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The writer is well-known and respected enough to have had his commentaries published in many major newspapers. He represents a significant view that under the NPOV policy must be acknowledge along with the view that Taiwan is part of China. I agree with you that "great majority" may overstate his position. If this article mentions Taiwanese Americans (and it does) then the article should point out that some Taiwanese Americans object to being called "Chinese Americans".Readin (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I do know a few Taiwanese-Americans who dislike being called Chinese Americans, and this fact should be mentioned. However most Taiwanese-Americans I know don't feel insulted by it, and some Taiwanese-Americans (such as myself) feel *extremely* insulted if it is implied that Taiwanese Americans *aren't* Chinese-Americans, and even more insulted if it is implied that thinking of oneself as Chinese implied that one doesn't care about Taiwan.

Roadrunner (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a pretty funny article because he is complaining that the pro-independence *President of Taiwan* says that Taiwanese are ethnic Chinese. Again, I have no objection to noting that some Taiwanese-Americans object to being called Chinese-Americans, but I do strongly object if this is stated as a common view, which it isn't. I should point out that no one I know from Taiwan, thinks that Taiwanese-Americans not Chinese-Americans. Roadrunner (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, a lot of my edits were to put information in Taiwanese-Americans back into the Chinese-American article. Yes, I do know that there are some Taiwanese-Americans that get offended whenever they hear the word "Chinese", but while their views need to be put in the article, it's also wrong to have that viewpoint completely dominate that article and leave out the views of Taiwanese-Americans like myself, who are quite proudly Chinese, and as far as I can tell from personal experience, Taiwanese-Americans who are offended by the term Chinese are a very small minority.

I'm actually interested in how the US census handles this issue. Their general attitude is to use self-identitification and to try to avoid these controversies. Roadrunner (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your personal experience are indeed limited. In my experience, it breaks down by ancestry. Taiwanese Americans whose ancestors came from China to Taiwan with Chiang generally oppose Taiwan's independence consider themselves Chinese. Taiwanese Americans whose ancestors were living in Taiwan before the 1940s support Taiwan's independence and while they may consider themselves "ethnically" Chinese (Junghwa), they consider themselves Taiwanese more than Chinese and definitely do not consider themselves "Jung gwo ren" (China nation people). How that translates into the English term "Chinese" varies.

There is correlation but it isn't exact. I know waishengren who are very pro-TI and benshengren who are very anti-TI. Also people who arrived in the 1960's care a lot more than people who arrived in the 1990's. Also the correlations aren't very strong. My wife is a benshengren from Taiwan and light green, and she doesn't mind being called zhongguoren. This is also true for most of her classmates.

Also I've found that people in the US have ***much*** stronger opinions about this than people in Taiwan. A lot of TI supporters in the US ended here specifically to escape political oppression so they are understandably very strong in their views. Also people in Taiwan actually have to leave with each other, whereas in the US it is much easier to maintain separate groups and not to deal with people you politically disagree with. Roadrunner (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Taiwanese Americans do not universally self-identify as "Chinese Americans", they should not be included in this article as though there were no dispute.

Since many Taiwanese Americans do self-identify as "Chinese Americans" they should not be excluded from this article. It is fair to mention the dispute.

Link one to the other. I personally self-identify as Chinese. I was born in Taiwan, but you are forgetting that Taiwan's official name is 中華民國, which is the Chinese Republic or Republic of China. Taiwanese means as much as it means to me as saying you're a New Yorker. I'm ethnically Chinese, but some ethnically Chinese (that is, those who fled the Commies) like to identify as Taiwanese American. That's their choice just as I like to be identified as Chinese American as a naturalized American citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.158.231.173 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a separate article for Taiwanese Americans. We can respect the notion that Taiwanese are also Chinese by including links to the Taiwanese Americans article within this article along with a note of the dispute. Statistics that include Taiwanese Americans need to note that they are doing so. Readin (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Added more information about the definition

Added a lot of information which I hope fits under NPOV. One particular thing to note is that a lot of Chinese Americans didn't come from mainland China or the ROC. The interesting thing (which is original research so it can't be included) is that the only people that I know of who object to be classified as Chinese Americans are people from Taiwan. None of the ethnic Chinese that I know of from Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, or Indonesia, object the being called Chinese American (nor do most people fron Taiwan that I know).

Roadrunner (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Change wording

It needs to be mentioned that a lot of Taiwanese Americans (like me and everyone in my family) very strongly oppose being excluded from Chinese American. Otherwise it sounds like a Mainland versus Taiwan thing, which it isn't.

Roadrunner (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Change phrasing

Remove trying to correlate location of origin with political views. Curiously I know people from the PRC who support Taiwan independence.

Roadrunner (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation to Chinese wikipedia needed

Also if anyone wants to help translate the recent additions to the Chinese wikipedia, let me know since I've put in links there between Chinese American and Taiwanese American. Describing the whole naming issue in Chinese is going to be interesting since the Chinese term for Chinese-American is clearly an ethnic rather than a political one which avoids most of the problems associated with the term Chinese, and I think Chinese language readers might be amused about learning about this controversy.

Roadrunner (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are also a lot of problems in the Chinese language article with terminology. Right now the Chinese article is named Americans of Chinese descent, which is problematic since it only includes ABC and not first generation immigrations. I've proposed on that wiki to rename it literally American ethnic Chinese meiguo huaren which I think includes everyone and is the closest definition.

Curiously there not an article on the Chinese wiki about American-born Chinese, a problem that I'm shortly going to fix.

Roadrunner (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Americans of Chinese descent" is far more accurate, less offensive, and solves the problem of whether or not to include Americans of Taiwanese descent whose ancestors moved to Taiwan from China. And it most certainly does include first generation immigrants.

It's one of the interesting things that terms don't quite translate literally between languages. The English term "Americans of Chinese descent" is not quite the same as the Chinese term "hua-yi mei-guo-ren." The Chinese term hua-yi mei-guo-ren seems to me to clearly exclude first generation immigrants, who are not hua-yi but rather hua-qiao. Also, the mainland China/Taiwan issue is non-existent in the Chinese wikipedia since it uses the term "hua ren" rather than "zhongguo ren" and no Chinese speaker (even extreme pro-independence ones) I know disputes that Taiwanese (and for that matter Singaporeans and Malaysian Chinese) are "hua ren." It was actually the Malaysians that invented the hua ren/zhongguo ren distinction. Roadrunner (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Chinese well enough to write my opposition to your suggestion myself, but please add my opposition to the wiki page where you've made the proposal. Readin (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing

This article left out a significant part of its history - ethnic cleansing of early Chinese-Americans. Many were persecuted in the mid 1800's as white Americans across the Western states of California and Washington attempted to eradicate early Chinese-Americans (Reference: Driven Out: The Forgotten War Against Chinese Americans written by Jean Pfaelzer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.253.83 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

True, there were race riots and violent crimes committed against Chinese immigrants. But to my knowledge, they don't qualify as "ethnic cleansing" because the Chinese were migrants not citizens and thus outside of the legal purview of the U.S. nation-state. The "ethnic cleansing" that took place in the U.S. was directed against European Americans NOT Asian immigrants who were all but barred from immigrating to the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1880 which was later extended to all Asians. Anti beast (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Serial systematic bias

Seriously, enough is enough. There are too many biases and inaccuracies in the article. Therefore, I have flagged the article as biased and inaccurate. The article is urgently in need of review and editing by a third party. 122.105.149.241 (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Migration patterns

The fact that most Chinese immigration to the US in the 1960's was from Taiwan seems rather uncontroversial, and I've reinserted the item with a "citation needed" tag. I'm going through the census figures for this sort of information.

Roadrunner (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if we personally deem it as uncontroversial, I think references are definitely needed for statements like these, because it is making a point and a claim.

Plus, the statement stated out with "until the 1970s...", isn't most of the immigrants to the U.S. were Cantonese-speakers? That statement sort of doesn't make sense with the rest of the article. That is why references are needed.--Sevilledade (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I put in a reference to the claim. Roadrunner (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry got back to you so late. But the statistics provided by the Homeland Security website table 2 did not match the statistics the statement was claiming. In the 1970s, it clearly showed Hong Kong having the most immigration with 117,350 vs. just 83,115 from Taiwan. So I'm quite confused about which part of the statement is working?--Sevilledade (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So then change the statement so that it matches that data. Roadrunner (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but the statement sort of lost its original meaning, which was to convey the majority sense.--Sevilledade (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The statistics figures from the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics [8] basically showed through out of 1950s, Hong Kong had about 13,781 immigrants to the U.S., while none prior to 1950s; mainland China had about 8,836 and Taiwan had about 721 immigrants in the same decade. In the 1960s, Hong Kong also had the most immigrants to the U.S. (67,047), while Taiwan had 15,657 and mainland China had 14,060. In the 1970s, Hong Kong had about 117,350 and Taiwan had 83,115 and mainland China had about 14,060 immigrants to the U.S.--Sevilledade (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the statement Roadrunner added to this article from this source (an British article called "Centre on Migration, Policy and Society" http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/Working%20papers/Frank%20Pieke%20WP0524.pdf) is fully accurate or not. It mentioned that for most of the 60s, emigration was almost completely banned in China; now I think that is pretty vague and the article didn't elaborate on it much. The U.S. government's Yearbook of Immigration Statistics [9] show that during the 1960s, the legally documented immigrants from China was about something like 14,060 (people who obtained legal permanent residences). That's a big difference from completely banned.--Sevilledade (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be done is that if we are using the official government's immigration statistics for the quantity of immigrant numbers, we should probably flesh out the complete figure and mention the whole statistical pattern throughout the 19th-20th centuries.--Sevilledade (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible patent nonsense?

It has been asserted at Vietnamese American that Vietnamese Americans of Hoa ethnicity are usually not considered "Chinese American". Despite this, the article Chinese American contains the following sentences.

Chinese Americans are Americans of Chinese descent. Chinese Americans constitute one group of Overseas Chinese and also a subgroup of East Asian Americans, which is further a subgroup of Asian Americans. Within this community, the term Chinese American is often broadly defined to include not only immigrants from mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau and their descendants but also immigrants and descendants of people from Taiwan as well as overseas Chinese who have immigrated to the United States from places as diverse as Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Mexico.

So, there you go. One of the articles must be wrong with regard to Hoa people. David873 (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hoa people can consider themselves whatever they want. Some consider themselves Chinese, others Vietnamese [10]. DHN (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes they switch from being Chinese-American to Vietnamese-American from context to context. It's really quite complicated. Roadrunner (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Hoa and Talk:Vietnamese people for a detailed response to this matter. David873 (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed usually to often. Roadrunner (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

31. User Hongqigong

Ok, the main issue with this page, and almost all other chinese pages on wikipedia is that the people are making edits about controversial topics. I pray to god the editors come to some sort of agreement, have a meeting or something, and decide what the policies are going to be, because, as it stands now, the editing is just embarrassing. It doesn't take a genius to look through the edits and see someone like Hongqigong edit paragraphs that include words like Taiwan when he feels that only China should be mentioned. This is dishonest and inherently political and controversial. Wikipedia has a policy for handling this sort of thing, and it should be followed. In addition, just look at the use of chinese at the top. Yes, english pages on chinese topics often include chinese characters and or translations, but they are all with a purpose. Here, simply stating what the chinese "translation" is for the term "chinese-american" serves no purpose. You say it's already linked to the same page in chinese, then let it link there, why does it need to be on this page? This problem likewise comes from the central issue that both chinese-american, and any variety of translatios for that word are inherently contested and controversial. Stating that all the newspapers use a certain expression does not solve the problem or remove the controversy. While there is some agreement as to the common English term, there is little consensus as to what it entails. Asian american is an easier term to deal with, but where does asia start and stop? While it is commonly known that meijihuaren is the common word to refer to chinese americans, this term is also not clearly defined. In addition, there are other words with extremely similar meanings, and other chinese terms which have no equivalent single/double word translation in English, huayimeiguoren for example. It would at least be nice for me to hear an acceptance that meijihuaren doesn't mean the same thing when a person in china is taking about chinese americans as when an american is talking about chinese american in all cases. If you can't understand that that is the cause of the controversy and the issues, you have serious denial issues, are confused, are one of the rabid nationalists, or you just work for the government. Because this is such a controversial issue, enough that you feel the need to make edits all the time to keep all entries as mainland pure as possible, and because i have little to no faith in the wikipedia editorial staff, judging by the upkeep of this and other pages, a reasonable solution in the short term would be to include a short discussion about the controversies surrouding this term in english and chinese (since that is clearly relevant in some degree). This can be done with a link to another page explaining the controversy surrounding chinese identity, or the china/taiwan issue, or whatever. If you do work for the government or are a super nationalist, I imagine no amount of reason or talking this out will be fruitful (I saw your previous responses to the naming controversy, they didn't show much cooperative spirit) and you'll probably just go on to delete this post as well. 123.123.112.39 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)underdog

Rank in Asian American ethnic group?

I saw that Vietnamese American and Japanese American say they are the fourth-largest and sixth-largest Asian American group. What about Chinese? Where is our ranking? I do not see it in the lead. ★Dasani★ 05:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:BruceLeecard.jpg

The image File:BruceLeecard.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

POV sources are bullshit like always

So you don't like the idea that Chinese came as gold miners? You don't like the idea that Chinese were successful merchants? You want to pretend that they were only menial labourers, based on one book, one very POV book? Sheesh, but it's typical of the self-righteous and poor-us rewrites of history that abound these days, and of pretentious home-country Chinese who want to reinvent North American history to suit their own feeble prejudices. Menial labourers for which prospectors? Because other sources are very clear, and in fact Chinese-ethnic histories often complain, that white employers would not hire Chinese to work in the mines, other Chinese did. yes, railway labour, yes, manufacturing - but for Chinese labour contractors, Chinese manufacturers. Does your citation not say that, HQG. No of course not because it's "Blame whitey" season in historiography isn't it? Your little bit of bad history makes it sound as if all Chinese were menial labourers, as if there were no rich ones, as if there were no Chinese merchants and Chinese factory owners. And if that's what's in your book, and what's not in it, then it's not a very bloody good book. But I'm familiar with your one-sided views of North American history, and just as nauseated as ever...Skookum1 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Really not going to respond to your usual soapboxing drivel. But:

• I've clarified the sentence from "...performed menial work for the gold prospectors" to "...performed menial work".
• Ronald Takaki is one of the finest and pioneering scholars of Asian American history, and is a great source.
• I've also added two other sources to that sentence.

That is all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Takaki is a well-respected scholar. His book tries to elicit sympathy for the plight of the early Asian immigrants but ends up evoking too much self-pity. No one disputes that there were race riots and violent crimes back then. But San Francisco was a frontier town -- rowdy, unruly and lawless. True, the Chinese migrants to California during the Gold Rush were mostly "coolies" but many became itinerant traders and a few became wealthy merchants. Guess who cooked meals and washed the clothing of the mostly white miners? And guess who operated the dry goods stores? In fact, Chinese entrepreneurs invented the shrimp farming industry and exported the dried shrimp back to China. And don't forget that most went back to China or else moved to other places like Alaska, Mexico and Hawaii where they intermarried with the natives. So in summary, I'd say that phrase "...performed menial work" is just plain non-sense. Anti beast (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Politics Section

Why does the politics section link to "Racism in the United States" and "Sinophobia"? This seems inappropriate, because I expect to read about Chinese American politicians in that section, and I don't think that has anything to do with racism. Anyone agree? (Blootix (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

I agree. The links should be somewhere in the article, but this doesn't seem like the right place. There is also a paragraph in the "politics" section that doesn't seem to belong.

During the Cultural Revolution, Chinese Americans, like all overseas Chinese, generally speaking, were viewed as capitalist traitors by the People's Republic of China government. This attitude changed completely in the late 1970s with the reforms of Deng Xiaoping. Increasingly, Chinese Americans were seen as sources of business and technical expertise and capital who could aid in China's economic and other development.

Looking over the article, I think it is poorly organized. There is too much overlap. For example, "Major Contributions" and "History" overlap. Life in America, Influence on American Culture, and Politics have significant overlaps. It is difficult, for example, to figure out which of these should contain the History (whoops, is that where it goes?) of anti-oriental racism. Some thought needs to be given to a re-org. Readin (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

mismatch

According to the 2006 American Community Survey, 1,330,361 or 37% of Chinese Americans (including Taiwanese and multiracial people) are native-born citizens, and a further 1,319,137 or 59% of foreign-born Chinese Americans are naturalized citizens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.220.64 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

HGQ - Re-instating bad English

Don't call me boring just because you've been too lazy to fix up the atrociously awkward English in this article, Hong; instead of just policing content why don't you actually do something about the bad condition of the article, from the bad grammar to the various bits of false/bloat (incl. negative stuff which apparently you either didn't catch instead of defending the POV slant of your chosen sources. "the first significant number of laborers from China who...performed menial labor" is not fixed in any way by inserting an intermediate clause "specifying" which kind of labour (or were they porters? gardeners? shipwrights? - you make a lot of assumptions, but then it's inherently a cliche you've been defending here anyway. For whom did they perform this menial labor, also? Were there no Chinese merchants? What about Chinese labour contractors who managed and rented out their countrymen? EVERYBODY in the goldfields, unless a merchant or an official, performed menial labor. If you knew anything about placer mining you'd know that. If they weren't welcome as employees of whites, who employed them? The Mexicans? (serious question)? It seems to me you're more interested in presenting the "waaah we were oppressed" line of ethnic tub-thumping instead of looking to your own house as far as this article goes; you claim to be a native English speaker, but how then did you tolerate so many bad bits of grammar all over the place (more yet) and also some very pointed negative comments from those with a much more clear anti-Chinese agenda than even the one you claim I represent; "bored again", Hong.....enjoy your tea.Skookum1 (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Bruce lee image from infobox

Bruce Lee was born in the United States to citizens of Hong Kong (whatever actual citizenship that meant in 1940) who were temporarily visiting the US at the time. They shortly returned to HK, and Lee grew up there under that citizenship. As he reached legal adulthood, he got into trouble with streetgangs, and exercising the option from the location of his birth to claim American citizenship was a handy way out. The primary idea was for him to get out of Hong Kong, not to go to the US, and until that time, no consideration was given to his legal option of US citizenship. Therefore, Lee does not fit the given definition of Chinese-American (he is a Hong Kongese—or whatever—who was born in America, not an American of Chinese descent) and should not be represented in the infobox montage, his great fame notwithstanding. For further discussion of the question of Lee's nationality, see Talk:Bruce Lee#Lee was American. --Ted Watson (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Within this community, the term Chinese American is often broadly defined to include ... immigrants from ... Hong Kong ... and their descendants ..." (emphasis added). There is no requirement that someone grow up in the US to be considered a "Chinese American"; this seems to be something you have invented. Perhaps you would like to present a reliable source which explicitly states that Lee should not be considered a Chinese American? You will note that the opposite claim is hardly a minority view: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not something to be decided by democratic vote. I'm looking for sources, but as I live in a small town less than 35 miles from any town large enough to have a Wal-Mart store, forget about a decent library, it will take some time. If I still lived in Dallas, TX, I could cite a huge number of sources which state that "Lee Ann Meriwether" was one of the actresses who played Catwoman on the 1960s Batman TV series, which is significantly erroneous in multiple ways. Besides, anybody who thinks linking in a Google search-result-list page proves anything.... --Ted Watson (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Active editors of this article are invited to join the discussion regarding the change in Asian American article's infobox. Specifically we are looking to get nominations for individuals who would fall under this article, nominations shall remain open until 9 November 2009. Comments are also welcomed. Thank you in advance --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the nomination process is now over, and the voting period has began. Due to lack of nominations the slot for Laotian female representative is vacant, and will need further discussion sometime after voting has been concluded. The voting period will last until 4 December 2009. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)