Talk:David Wu/Archive 1

Archive 1 December 10 2005-December 31 2006

Conflict with Goli Ameri
Reader Richard sent an e-mail citing the difference between this article and the Goli Ameri article.

"The Wikipedia articles on "David Wu" and "Goli Ameri" contradict each other.

The former says: "Ameri chose to barely discuss the issue in the last days of the campaign, a decision that many cited as a factor in her decisive loss."

The latter says: "Ameri heavily pushed the issue in the closing days of the campaign, which contributed to her loss in the election."

I changed the wording of this article to be consistent with this Portland Tribune article. . Capitalistroadster 23:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't honestly know how you can "barely discuss" an issue. It sounds grammatically strange at best. Davidpdx 14:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Is is apparent that user:143.231.249.141 has a conflict of interested based information on the user's webpage. If this is true, then this person is inside one of the House Buildings possibly as staffer of Congressman Wu or campaign worker. If that is the case, then they should not be editing this article. Davidpdx 02:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Information Regarding 2002 Election
Someone who is an unregistered user has removed a large portion of the article stating it doesn't belong there. I am challanging this asserting, in that it was a big news story, even though the end result didn't directly affect the election.

There has been some problems with candidates staff or campaigns making changes to articles that simply take out everything bad things only leaving the good stuff. Please post why you think it should be removed rather the reverting. Otherwise, I may begin to think it's simply Wu's campaign trying to whitewash the article. Davidpdx 11:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, apologies -- it's been a while since I bothered to edit anything, and had to whip up a new username. I moved the details of Goli Ameri's strategy (and the results) to the Goli Ameri page, citing the reason that her political strategy belonged under her entry and not Wu's.  I felt it was enough to mention (and link to) her page for the 2004 election. ew73 9:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I understand some of it could be thought of a strategy. Certainly we could par it down to just the fact that sexual assault allegation (I'm being careful not to say it was true because really it was never proven in court) and his apology and leave it at that. I also think the results from the third party candidate could be removed as well. Please let me know what you think. Davidpdx 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the reference belongs almost entirely on Ameri's article, as she was the one that made it an issue during the election. Perhaps something along the lines of "Ameri created some controversy with a sexual harassment allegation near the end of the 2004 election"?  I'm hesitant to remove information on the 3rd party candidate unless it can be found (easily) somewhere else, but I've no strong feelings about it one way or another.Ew73 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll post what I'm recommending here on the talk page so you can see what I mean. Here is what is there now:

In the 2004 election, Wu was challenged by Goli Ameri, a Republican Iranian-American. On October 12, 2004, Congressman Wu admitted that he had been disciplined for attempted sexual assault by Stanford officials while a student at the school in 1976. Ameri was reluctant at first to campaign on the issue, but toward the end of the campaign focused on the issue heavily. This had little effect on the final outcome as Wu garnered 58% of the vote in the 2004 race, compared to Ameri's 38%, and 4% for Dean Wolf, the Constitution Party candidate.


 * What I propose is cutting it to this:

In the 2004 election, Wu was challenged by Goli Ameri, a Republican Iranian-American. On October 12, 2004, Congressman Wu admitted that he had been disciplined for attempted sexual assault by Stanford officials while a student at the school in 1976. Wu won the 2004 general election with 58% of the vote, compared to Ameri's 38%, and 4% for Dean Wolf, the Constitution Party candidate.


 * Since you said you had mixed feelings about taking the 3rd party candidate out, I went ahead and left it in. I think this is dramatically scaled back from what was there, but still leaves the fact that the alligations were made and he admitted to them. Can you see anything wrong with this? Davidpdx 14:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong in the information presented, no. It flows pretty poorly, though.  How about:

In the 2004 election, Wu was challenged by Republican Goli Ameri. On October 12, 2004 after Ameri brought the issue to the forefront of her campaign, Wu admitted that he had been disciplined in 1976 for attempted sexual assault by Stanford officals while he was attending the school. Wu won the 2004 general election with 58% of the vote, compared to Ameri's 38%, and 4% for Deal Wolf, the Constitution Party candidate.


 * Reasoning (in order of changes) -- Ameri's heritige is spelled out quite clearly on her own article. The context for the admission by Wu is important. As you had it, it read like Wu ran against this Ameri person and oh yeah, he's a sexual predator.  I don't like the election results there, but aside from creating a comprehensive "2004 Election Results" article, it's the best place, I guess.


 * Yeah, that makes sense to remove what her heritage is, because it really doesn't matter. That should tighten up the paragrapn pretty nice. I don't think he's a sexual predator, in fact it might even be worth it to reinforce the fact that charges were never brought against him.


 * By the way are you in Oregon. There are tons of other articles that need help in terms of Oregon politicans. I don't know if you have the time or not. I've been trying to fix some of them, but I haven't had much time lately.Davidpdx 00:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I went a head and updated the article, feel free to fiddle with it. And yeah, I'm in Oregon (Portland, actually). User:ew73 02:32, April 1, 2006 Ew73

Recent Changes
I noticed there have been a fair amount of changes recently. I want to say bluntly, ''' if you are involved in Wu's campaign or that of his challanger in any way, you should not be editing this article. ''' Articles on Wikipedia need to remain NPOV (unbiased).

In terms of the changes I made, there were two things. First, the last person that edited it referred to him as Taiwanese and Chinese. I am aware of the situation in terms of China and Taiwan, but we need to refer to him as one or the other, not both. What was added was repetitive and rediculous.

The second change was taking out the quote from the article. I'm not sure who stuck it in there, but as long as there is a reference to the article, I think putting the quote is overkill. The controversy is two years old now, mentioning it in the article is good, but blowing it out of proportion is crazy.

I'm willing to work with people on the wording of things. However, if there is blatent POV pushing, I will bring a stop to it right away. Wikipedia is not a propoganda machine for politicans and their campaigns. Davidpdx 06:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wu's official biography, as linked in the article, notes him as the "first and only Chinese-American to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives." It is not incongruent to list someone as both Chinese and Taiwanese. Especially since Wu has used the term Chinese instead of Taiwanese in his bio, I really don't see what's wrong with doing so here.--Jiang 01:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think really one or the other should be used for consistancy sake. Most people are quite aware Taiwan belongs to China. Saying he is the first Tawianese Congressman and then turning around and saying he's the first Chinese Congressman is repetitive.


 * The second issue is with the category he's put in. For the sake of arguement I'm open to either one. However, again it goes to using consistancy. Like I said I'm willing to work with people, but I'm quite annoyed at some people (I think you know who) that simply revert and are not willing to discuss things. Davidpdx 11:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

By claiming Taiwan belongs to China is a POV statement. And if you were referring to me in your previous edit, I gotta let you know that I am always open to discussion. Your post on my talkpage said "Taiwan and China are one country". It's a probably your own POV. The situation is highly complex.--Bonafide.hustla 11:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I just lost a huge chunk of what I wrote, so I'll try to duplicate what I just tried to post.


 * First, in response to Bonafide's claim that it's my POV is bogus. Up until now, you've been unwilling to discuss rather then simply revert. Yes, people are busy but good faith and explaining your point goes a long way. China and Taiwan are recognized as one by most nations including the US.


 * Second, as I said, I'm willing to consider and look at changes, but consistency is quite a problem with this article. Also some duplicate statements were put in claiming he was the "first Taiwanese Congressman" as and then later, "the first Chinese American" which is repetitive and unnecessary.


 * Third, the article mentions the following:


 * 1) Wu as Taiwanese born (background section)
 * 2) Wu as the "first Chinese-American congressmen" (background section)
 * 3) Wu as a Taiwanese-American (category)


 * So, if you don't claim they are one and the same, why refer to them as both Chinese and Taiwanese? Again, all I'm asking for is consistency. Personally I don't care if you want to call him a Martian (with apologizes to Wu), the article should be fixed to be consist. Davidpdx 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, they're not the *same*. In cases (1) and (3) specificity is preferred since we are denoting something unique to Mr. Wu, while in case (2) generality is preferred since we denoting something that concerns the community at large. If we use "Taiwanese American" in (2) then we lose information, because the first Taiwanese American congressman cannot be automatically be assumed also to be the first Chinese American congressman while the converse can be assumed to be true.

The article as it stands now does not contain duplication and redundancy in the text. There is nothing inconsistent with listing someone as both Chinese American and Taiwanese America, depending on how general or specific we want. We could also call David Wu an Asian American, but doing so conveys no new information that isn't already implied. --Jiang 04:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There was an editing conflict so I have to do this all over again. Just like Davidpdx said, I too believe by stating Wu as both Taiwanese and Chinese causes a lack of consistency and coherence in the article. I am, however, not the one who claims Wu to be a Chinese American. User Jiang did. By claiming “Wu to be Chinese without elaborating the complex issue is a form of POV pushing. According to the naming convention of wikipedia, []. One important subtle point: Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China, yet does not address whether they are considered separate nations. Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia should merely state the de facto situation that Taiwan is governed by an independent government/state/regime called the "Republic of China." When it is necessary to describe the political status of Taiwan, special note should be made of Taiwan's complex position. The term "province of Taiwan" can be offensive.

This is why I am deeply concerned about Davidpdx’s statement above. people are quite aware Taiwan belongs to China. Saying he is the first Tawianese Congressman and then turning around and saying he's the first Chinese Congressman is repetitive. This is wrong.

In response to the statement below, I have a sense that Davidpdx does not know what he’s talking about. “China and Taiwan are recognized as one by most nations including the US.” This is incorrect. While US no longer recognize the ROC, the two countries still form a strong military alliance as well as unofficial relations. The US’s official statement about this situation is quite ambiguous, neither supporting the official creation of the Republic of Taiwan or a Chinese invasion. Its position is very much like the conventions mentioned above, strive to maintain the status quo in order to avoid further conflict. The US does NOT however view Taiwan as a part of the PRC. In addition, wikipedia’s an encyclopedia so the US foreign policy shouldn’t have any effect on the article. The most important issue here is maintaining a neutral POV.

Since Wu is born in Taiwan, he is a de facto Taiwanese. Therefore, making him a Taiwanese American. His status as a Chinese American, however, is debatable. That is why all the Chinese American stuff on the article should be removed.--Bonafide.hustla 05:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jiang's statemtn is very much a POV statement. Saying Taiwanese as a subgroup of Chinese is really offensive. Wu's status as a chinese american is not de facto. Whether being Taiwanese makes you a Chinese is debatable. Claiming Taiwanese to be chinese is a violation of NPOV.--Bonafide.hustla 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * David Wu calls himself a Chinese American. I don't see anyone trying to deny that he is. To be POV, there have to be people denying that Wu is Chinese (i.e. there have to be separate points of view). Here he is being referred by the media as "Chinese American":    --Jiang 06:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, like I said the debate is about consistancy. I would rather not have a debate about whether China and Taiwan are one in the same. The point is the added reference to his being Chinese is not consistant with the category and place of birth shown in the article. The best example of when this happened is this particular edit by User:Jiang: . The lastest edit by Jiang is equally distressing.


 * I agree overall I agre with you BH, but I think we need to figure out together how to come to a compromise so this isn't reverted over and over again. The main reason I care is I am an Oregonian and frequently work on bios of politicans from my state. If the statement about him being Chinese is omitted, then I'm perfectly fine with it. My question is, can it stay that way and not be reverted? Davidpdx 08:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't see how being Chinese American is "inconsistent" with being born in Taiwan and also Taiwanese American. Its perfectly consistent to go into different levels of specificity to convey different information. The vast majority of Taiwanese Americans (as is in the case of David Wu) also identify as Chinese Americans, for reasons already provided at Talk:Taiwanese American, Talk:List of Chinese Americans and elsewhere.--Jiang 09:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I choose not to engage in a revert war with User:Jiang at the moment. User:Davidpdx is totally right. Btw I'm not the editor who is reverting back to the Chinese version, Jiang is. I'm the editor who is constantly removing the chinese part. User:Jiang, with all due respect, the two discussions listed above contains a vast majority of other users (myself included) who disagree with the inclusion of Taiwanese American as Chinese American. You are actually the only editor (other than a few random opinions) who supports the inclusion, without acknowledging the difference in ethnicity, culture, and political situation. Self-reference is not reliable on wikipedia. If Bobby Fischer claims to be Chinese, this info is unencyclopedic and thus won't be included. Before I go, I must repost this comment by User:Hmains.

All the Ethnic Group list articles are meant to simply list people who (themselves or their ancestors) immigrated from a particular country. This existing 'list of Chinese Americans' article is, or should be, those people who came from China (mainland); the existing 'list of Taiwanese Americans' article are those people who came from Taiwan. No politics here. No culture here. No self-reference questions of the people involved--who knows what is in their minds. Just geographic facts. Anything else should be removed as not NPOV. Thanks --Bonafide.hustla 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not alone: see Talk:Sophia Yan and Talk:List of Chinese Americans. You do not have a "vast majority." Besides, Wikipedia is not a democracy and I have yet to comprehend the "consistency" Davidpdx speaks of.
 * What about list of Jews or list of Arabs? John Abizaid is Arab American, but neither he nor his immediate ancestors come from Arabia. On this basis, I don't think your definition of "ethnic group" is valid. Ethnic groups are sociological groupings based on common lineage, language, culture, and importantly, self identification. They transcend modern states. No one is denying that David Wu is Taiwanese American. But who, other than yourself, is denying that Taiwanese Americans are Chinese? If this were truly controversial as you put it, then perhaps you could find a source to back your claim?--Jiang 04:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, one more time. The consistancy issue I have is the fact that the article lists him born in Taiwan (which is a fact, I'm sure no one will disagree on that). The article lists him in terms of categories as Taiwanese-American, but in the article it lists him as the first Chinese-American (also at one point an edit had him listed as both the first Chinese-American in one sentence and the first Taiwanese-American in another sentence). I think the article should list him as the first Taiwanese-American congressman to make the article consistant. I've said this over and over again.


 * The first example you gave of General Abizaid is not even related. Yes, you can call him Arab-American just as you can call Wu Asian-American. But you can not equate Taiwanese as the same as Chinese. It simply does not make sense.


 * The second example you gave of Ms. Yan, there is a similar arguement going on as we are having here. In fact, BH is making the same points there has he has here. In fact, citing that has an example doesn't make sense either, because in essence you haven't make the arguement there either.


 * I would submit that by insisting that he be described as Chinese-American you are bias and POV pushing based on the fact your nationality is Chinese. Please look at NPOV specifically:


 * NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.


 * Bias can be based on ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism and regionalism.


 * The other part of NPOV is that the facts should speak for themselves. Saying he is Chinese-American is not a fact, but instead is stating your opinion. There is a clear difference. I hope you will consider these things in terms of the edits. We would rather work in cooperation with you then have conflict. I've had experiences on Wikipedia where it is not cooperative and I can tell you it is a long drawn out ordeal. In the end it went to arbitration, so yes I will take that far. Davidpdx 09:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand your rationale. How is it not possible for a person to be both Taiwanese and Chinese at the same time? Are you saying that just because George W. Bush is explained as an American, he cannot also be a Texan? The concept of being "Chinese" is perhaps difficult for someone not acquainted with the culture, so I'll explain again: there are two terms for the concept of "Chinese person", huaren and zhongguoren. The former means culturally Chinese and includes all those of Chinese descent including the diaspora. The latter means political Chinese and includes only those living in China and those with Chinese citizenship. In Taiwan, about 40 to 50 percent consider themselves to be zhongguoren while almost the entire population considers themselves to be huaren. Chinese Americans, on the other hand, are by default huaren since they are overseas Chinese. Given this flexibility in the definition, it is not controversial at all to label overseas Taiwanese as huaren, and Chinese newspapers here in the Bay Area do it all the time. So when David Wu (who has been very critical of the PRC) calls himself a "Chinese American", no one from the overseas Taiwanese community is going to call him a traitor because such usage of the term is compatable with the consensus identification in Taiwan.

I don't see how being a Chinese national has any relevance here, but I am not. I am an American citizen of Chinese and Taiwanese descent living in the United States. If saying he is Chinese American is merely an opinion, then there must be a counter-opinion. Where is the counter opinion? Who is doubting Congressman Wu's own self-identification?

So no, Taiwanese is not the same as Chinese, but Taiwanese can also be Chinese, depending on who you ask and how you define Chinese. I repeat, this is an issue of specificity.--Jiang 06:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll analyze your analogy. Texas is to US as Taiwan is to China. You're implying Taiwan is a province of China. A total POV pushing. The overall consensus of Taiwanese population in the US considers themselves distinct from China. Even supporters of pan-blue avoid using the term Chinese when asked about their ethnicity.--Bonafide.hustla 06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * clearly does not know what he is talking about. Ethnicity is unrelated to the political status. Bonafide.hustla is POV pushing out of a non-issue. RevolverOcelotX

Based on the polls I have linked to and the fact that I have spent significant time in Taiwan, I can say that Bonafide.hustla's most recent claims are completely untrue. The consensus is that Taiwan is not part of the People's Republic of China, but the consensus is not that Taiwan is not part of China. Based on the polls, about half the people believe that Taiwan is a part of China while half the people do not. (DPP politicians sometimes use "China" and the "Republic of China" in the same sentence, the former to refer to the PRC and the latter to refer to Taiwan, though the term "Taiwan" is preferred by them.) There is no denying on the part of the Taiwanese (aboriginals excluded), across the political spectrum, that they are ethnically Han Chinese and culturally Huaren. But that is as far green supporters will go, while blue supporters will also agree that they are politically zhongguoren. A good number of mainlanders in Taiwan (very prevalent in older generations but diminishing in younger generations) will also deny that they are Taiwanese. These also tend to be the most ardent blue supporters, so I don't see your point there. --Jiang 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen there are new comments added to the talk page, however I am unable to respond right now because I'm out of town. I'll likely be able to post a response tomorrow. Davidpdx 23:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm back in town now.


 * First, RevolverOcelotx comment is unhelpful and doesn't add anything to the discussion. If you actually want to add something to the discussion then fine. Otherwise, I'd say your just trying to pick a fight. Based on what I've seen on everyone's talk page (other then myself), all three of you have been banned for some reason or another. So if you want to question good faith, maybe it would be a good idea to look at your own motives as well.


 * Second, this discussion seems to be going nowhere except in circles. It is my recommendation that there be an RFC. In my opinion this needs to be settled in a diffrent way since the parties involved are unable to come to some agreement. That being said I am nominating the article for comment. Davidpdx 00:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Who me? Bonafide.hustla has been banned (informally via individual administrator decree) for a few short periods of time back in Feb-Apr for disruptive editing and personal attacks and RevolverOcelotX has been banned a couple times more recently for 24hrs at a time for violating 3RR. But Jiang? I did impose short blocks on myself back in late-2003/early-2004 (long before you arrived) to curb Wikiaddiction and get some real work done, but I managed to unblock myself each time and had to surrender. So here I still am, editing Wikipedia. Jiang will never be banned!! Jiang will haunt wikipedia forever and ever. Muhahahaha --Jiang 01:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC
I am nominating this article for comment to deal with the following issue:

A reference in the article that was added by User:Jiang refers to David Wu as, "Wu is the first and only Chinese American to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives."

The contention by some (including myself) is that because he is listed in the article as being born in Taiwan and that he is in the category as Taiwanese, that the sentence should instead read, "Wu is the first and only Taiwanese American to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives."

Therefore, I am asking for comments in terms of which one should be used for NPOV and consistancy. Davidpdx 00:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's my two cents.  The first thing to keep in mind is that when we use the "_____-American" we're usually talking about RACE here, not nationality or geography.  An African-American probably has not had an ancestory who actually lived in Africa for many, many generations-- "African" is a word we use to describe his race.  We basically get to pick one word to describe the race of the person.  Now, this presents a problem, because someone has multiple options of what to pick to describe themselves:  someone who's from Italy could rightfully call themselves "Italian-American" or "European-American".  Someone from Japan could rightfully call themselves "Japanese-America", or simply "Asian-American".  As we see, someone from Taiwan has many options, and there are good arguments for each.  Being "the first Taiwanese-American congressman" gives us much specificity about his geographic ancestry.  Being "the first Chinese-American congressman" gives us more information about the prior racial makeup of congress.   So, for this case, we should craft an article that gives the reader all the possible information:  Where he was born, what race he is, and what the prior racial makeup of congress was like.  Therefore, I suggest we do this:


 * Explicitly mention where he was born. We say "Wu was born in Taiwan", so.. now readers will know that.
 * If we want to specify his race, let's use the term the subject uses himself, thereby letting them define for themselves what race they are. So, if we for some reason needed to outright say "David Wu is a ______", let's use Chinese-American, since that supposedly is what he uses in his official bio.
 * When using a term like "first _______ member of congress", let's use the LARGEST group that the subject fits into for which he is indeed the first. If there had been a prior Chinese-American congressman, but never one from Taiwan, we should just say "First Taiwanese-American Congressman".  If there has never been an Asian-American congressman before, we should say "First Asian-American Congressman".  Since there HAVE been Asian-Americans in Congress before, but never Chinese-Americans before, let's use "First Chinese-American Congressman" (assuming of course that the subject would agree that he IS Chinese-American--which supposedly, he does.)
 * --Alecmconroy 01:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. Part of the problem is assuming Taiwanese equates to Chinese. This is where we have gone round and round. If you are Taiwanese does this mean you can assume that you are also Chinese?


 * Second, it is specified already that he was born in Taiwan. But the other thing is he is listed in a category as Taiwanese American. Using the reasoning that everyone else is making, he then should also be in the Chinese American category as well (given the fact that several people are arguing that he is the first Chinese American).


 * My point that I've made over and over again, is that this is inconsistant. Also if you look in the discussion above, at one point Jiang had two sentences claiming he was both the, "first Chinese American" and then in another paragraph the "first Taiwanese American." I removed one of them, which I felt was a bold attempt at Jiang at POV pushing, which I attempted to correct. That is how this discussion began. Davidpdx 02:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether Chinese American include Taiwanese American is highly debatable. If we use the subgroup you suggest Asian-Chinese-Taiwanese, we are implying Taiwan is part of China which is a complicated situation and a delicate topic on wikipedia. That being said, the ethnicity composition is not a factor here. Most Taiwanese people nowadays originated in the coast of China, not to mention aboriginals, Japanese ancestry, European rule (Dutch, Hispanic, Portuguese), Pacific Islanders, post-1949 soldiers after the communist rebellion, although these groups are minorities. However, most people have been living in Taiwan since 12th or 13th century so it is wrong to "still" classify them as Chinese americans according to ethnic issues. Note that Japanese, Korean, some Vietnamese, Mongolian, Singaporean, etc also are "ethnic" Chinese, yet we do not classify them as Chinese Americans, thus creating a "double standard" here. The classification of Wu as Chinese American seems to be nothing but political (ie. If Taiwan is de facto recognized in the UN, this classification will not exist). Taiwanese is only recognized by some 25-ish countries, but labelling Taiwanese as Chinese is still a form of POV pushing and a violation of nPOV. This can be seen as an example of the dominant number pro-Chinese wikipedians trying to assimilate/dominate/distort Taiwan-China related (similar to the # of POV edits of Arab-Israeli article, just because there are more wikipedians supporting one side doesn't mean it's factually correct and neutral) info. on wikipedia in order to justify Chinese disputed claim on Taiwan. I'm gonna post more comments on here later.--Bonafide.hustla 02:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I assure you, I for one am not part of a Pro-China cabal, and I'm not trying to make ANY statement at all about the Taiwan situation. I think that what we call Wu's RACE has nothing to do with the geography of where he personally was born.  Let's say my grandparents were Jews who lived in Poland before they moved to the US.  Most likely, I will consider myself a Jewish-American, not a Polish-American.  Nor does calling me a Jewish-American somehow imply that Poland is actually a part of Israel.


 * Amazingly enough, calling someone "Chinese" does not actually imply they are "from China". China is just one of many countries in which Chinese people live.  "Chinese" is a name for a cluster of racial and cultural characteristics.  "Chinese" is sorta like "Arab" in that it implies an ethnicity, not a nationality.  "Chinese"'s usage is closer to "White" than it is to "Texan".


 * Now... we'd have a different situation on our hands if Wu didn't consider himself racially Chinese. Maybe he was born in Taiwan but his ancestors came from Japan or Laos or Nigeria.  Or maybe his ancestors were Chinese, but he now does not accept that label, and prefers to be called Taiwanese.   But this isn't the case.  Wu, after looking at his skin, examining his face, talking to his parents, and looking at a map, has decided to call himself a Chinese-American.  I see no reason to over-rule him.


 * As for the categories, I'd say we put him in both. The category description for Chinese Americans says,"This category includes articles on people who immigrated from China to the United States, or are self-identified as Chinese Americans." Wu clearly self-identifies as Chinese-American, so he belongs in that category.  But Wu did imigrant from Taiwan to the United States, so he just as clearly belongs in the the category Taiwanese Americans.


 * --Alecmconroy 03:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I made some edits, see what you think. I list him in BOTH categories.  I first describe him as racially chinese, and explain that qualifies him as Chinese American.  I explain that he immigrated from Taiwan to the US, and as such, he is Taiwanese American.  I know this is a somewhat lengthy way to do it, but it's probably the most accurate and most neutral.  If you look, Albert Einstein has a similar situation.  He is listed as German-American, Swiss-American, and Jewish-American.  He was ethnically Jewish, he was born in Germany, and he had Swiss citizenship-- so, he's all three.  --Alecmconroy 04:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (editing conflict) Due to an editing conflict, I lost about two paragraphs of what I wrote, so I'm going to try to restate what I said. I'm putting it here because that's where it was intended.


 * I would be willing to look at him being in two categories. I think though the sentence about him being, "the first.." is where I have a problem. I have stated time and time again that this is against NPOV in terms of Wikipedia's policy.


 * Also it was pointed out that Jiang has a huge bias against Taiwan in genreral. For that reason he should not edit unless he's willing to abide by NPOV guidelines. If you don't believe me look at the pictures on his talk and user pages, specifically and this one  that says "Taiwan=shame" If this doesn't show bias, I don't know what does. Davidpdx 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't see how mentioning him as "Chinese American" is POV. In light of what I have posted re the huaren v. zhongguoren distinction, please do elaborate on your point below.
 * My personal biases are irrelevant. Everyone has political views, and mine don't even align with the signs on the page (as you accuse). Argue facts, not personalities. If you have something personal, take it to my talk page.--Jiang 05:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally biases ARE relevent when it comes to POV pushing. Because you have a bias against Taiwanese and show that bias, you reflect that upon your edits on Wikipedia. That is specifically why NPOV is a policy on Wikipedia. Yes, everyone has an opinion (you know there's the old saying, I won't say it because it's a bit crass), but once someone starts overtly pushing their opinion into articles it becomes a problem. Davidpdx 05:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If my contributions are biased, then point out (by analyzing their content) how they are biased. Pointing the finger at me and yelling "bias" is going to convince no one. Whether you agree with it or not, Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks. Specifically, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If I'm posting garbage here, then try convincing everyone else that my postings are garbage by providing opposing claims, evidence, or examples. Otherwise, repeatedly violating the rules like this can get you into trouble even if you think you are right. --Jiang 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bonafide.hustla: Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Mongolians are not Han Chinese and genetically, linguistically, and culturally different from Han Chinese, and are not known by the "ethnic Chinese" label. Singaporean Chinese, on the other hand, ARE classified as ethnic Chinese. Just as they are Huaren in Singapore, they are still Huaren in the United States. The same goes for Taiwanese: their status as Huaren are not in dispute. Chinese newspapers in America frequently apply the terms huaqiao (overseas Chinese) and huaren (cultural Chinese) to Taiwanese. Today, I just saw an article describing someone, who I know personally as an Indonesian Chinese who's never lived in China, as a "huaqiao of the Bay Area".


 * Davidpdx: To answer your first question, if you are Taiwanese, you can assume to be Huaren (culturally Chinese) but whether you identify as Zhongguoren (politically Chinese) will depend on your political opinions. If you are Chinese American, you can assume to be Huaren, but whether you identify as Zhongguoren will depend on how recent you or your ancestors have arrived from China (usually within one generation). Due to such discrepancies, "ethnic Chinese" in Taiwan and America are labelled by the same term "huaren" as a means to be all-inclusive and non-controversial. The very definition of Chinese American is therefore one of culture and heritage, not political identification. This is accepted by even the greenest of Taiwanese. If you still understand how "Chinese American" cannot be controversial as applied to Taiwanese Americans, then please ASK instead of repeating the same things over and over again.


 * To answer your second question, Wu had previously been listed in both the Chinese American and Taiwanese American categories, but Bonafide.hustla removed the Chinese American category and I let that stay because Taiwanese American is classified as a subcategory of Chinese American and there is no need to be redundant. I'm fine with having things changed back to the way they were.


 * Alecmconroy: I don't think it needs to be presented in two separate sections. "first Chinese American (and first Taiwanese American)" in one sentence will do. A footnote can be used, linking to his official biography. --Jiang 05:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about content rather than compromise. Unfortunately, this example of compromising results in incoorect, POV info on this biography. Self identification is not valid encyclopedia info. Bobby Fischer identifies himself as not Jewish yet his name appear on the List of Jews. There is a double standard existing here. I am not gonna involve myself in a revert war right now but if we can't come up with a better solution, I'm afraid some necessary steps must be taken.--Bonafide.hustla 05:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well...why do you think Bobby Fischer is being listed as a Jew despite his self-identification? Perhaps his mother is Jewish, and thus, he satisfies a common criteria used to establish Jewish status? The Taiwanese American community, all identify themselves as overseas Chinese (huaqiao), as does the media, the US Census, and a whole bunch of overseas Chinese organizations. Wu's self-identification is consistent with the general community; Fischer's is not. The latter will require further elaboration in the biography; the former does not. --Jiang 05:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is also the fact that Bobby Fischer seems to have had a complete psychotic breakdown. --Alecmconroy 06:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because Wu self identifies with being a "Chinese-American" doesn't necessarly mean the information has to be listed on Wikpedia. Again, I point back to Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines:


 * NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.


 * Types of bias include:


 * -Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions.
 * -Commercial bias, including advertising, coverage of political campaigns in such a way as to favor corporate interests, and the reporting of issues to favor the interests of the owners of the news media.
 * -Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism and regionalism. 
 * -Gender bias, including sexism and heteronormativity.
 * -Geographical bias which may for example describe a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.
 * -Nationalistic bias: favoring the interests or views of a particular nation. 
 * -Political bias, including bias in favor of or against a particular political party, policy or candidate. 
 * -Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others.
 * -Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings.  Davidpdx 05:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, I ask you to elaborate on your point that the label "Chinese American" is biased while bringing in the huaren v. zhongguoren distinction and media renderings of Taiwanese identities into account.--Jiang 05:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * David, I'm confused. Why would it be okay to list him in the Chinese American category but not list him as the "First Chinese-American Congressman"?--Alecmconroy 05:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I only said I'm willing to look at that as an idea. My arguement has been for consistancy and NPOV unlike Jiang who is not willing to compromise. Davidpdx 05:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jiang is a self-identified Chinese nationalist who promote violence/assimilation against Taiwanese. I urge him not to participate in the editing because of suspicion of pov. Linguistically, and culturally, how Chinese Taiwanese really is up for much debate. genetically, Japanese, Korean, etc are in fact, Han Chinese who emigrated hundreds of years ago, just like most Taiwanese,--Bonafide.hustla 05:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * based on Demographics_of_Taiwan, Japanese_people and History_of_Korea, none of what you just posted is true. If you don't trust Wikipedia, I can link other sources saying the same.--Jiang 05:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

David, I'm not understanding you, but I feel like I should be able to, like I'm just missing something somehow. If Wu calls himself Chinese, can't we call him that too? I mean, if HE would say "I'm the first Chinese-American Congressman", isn't that a sentence we should put into the article? --Alecmconroy 05:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alecmconroy, David Wu is identified as a Chinese American in most sources. We should list him both categories. RevolverOcelotX


 * Self-idetification is not encyclopedic. Bobby Fischer identifies himself as not Jewish yet his name appear on the List of Jews. Wu's status is up for much debate even if he claims to be Chinese American.--Bonafide.hustla 05:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But for the purposes of determining race, self-identification is more encyclopedia than anything else we have. Do you know where Wu's parents came from?  Maybe they moved to Taiwan from Beijing two weeks before he was born, and they were the first of his ancestors to ever set foot out of the city any time during the last three centuries.  You see my point?  We certainly shouldn't compel all residents of Taiwan to list their ethnicity as Chinese-- but I don't see why we should forbid them from doing so either.  --Alecmconroy 06:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alec, we don't know where his parents roots are, so speculating would be wrong. He many be 1/4 Japanese or Thai for all we know. The problem is we don't know for sure. I think this kind of thing shouldn't be on Wikipedia, his nationality is Taiwanese. Yes, he describes himself as Chinese and maybe ethnically he is (at least part) Chinese. But if we list every single nationality that a person "recognizes" themseleves as, the articles will be clogged up with quite a bit of bs. Davidpdx 06:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but for MOST individuals, their ethnicity is irrelevant and we don't need to specify it, so we never even have to have this debate. But here, we're looking at a person who claims to be civil-right groundbreaker, so his ethnicity is somewhat central to the debate.  Hey, I totally understand the dilemma of "Is someone from Taiwan a Chinese-American".  It's a complex issue, and it depends on what you mean by "Chinese"-- a multinational race, a citizenship, or a culture.  But, in this case, MANY people consider Wu to be the first Chinese-American Congressman.  Even if he were black, it's still an undisputed fact that many people DO, for whatever reason, consider him to be the first Chinese-American Congressman.  That fact _HAS_ to be notable.--Alecmconroy 06:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even though he may be entitled to a Republic of China passport, Wu's relevant nationality is American. Apart from nationality, it's birthplace, heritage, and race/ethnicity unless you want to explicitly note dual citizenship.
 * Found the answer to your question here: "In fact, although he was born in Taiwan, both Wu's parents and his extended family come from mainland China. While many mainlanders fled to Taiwan in order to avoid the Communist regime of Mao Tse-tung, Wu's parents were essentially visitors to the island who were trapped by the civil war. As a result, he says, he harbors no special sympathy for Taiwan." (I really though he was bengshengren based on facial features, but I guess looks decieve, especially within the same ethnic group.)
 * This means the "controversial political issue" is not whether Wu is Chinese American, but whether we can label him as "Taiwanese American" due to his status as a waishengren. (see Talk:Elaine Chao for this debate) --Jiang


 * I think this is very telling proof that Wu should definitely be characterized as Chinese-American. A caucasian is still caucasian, even if he and his wife move to South Africa and have kids there.  A black woman does not cease being black merely because she moves to England.  Wu is clearly racially Chinese, which is one of the two ways to qualify for being a Chinese-American.  Similarly, Wu _CLEARLY_ was born in Taiwan, he clearly had Taiwanese citizenship, he clearly immigrated to the US from Taiwan, so he definitely qualifies as a Taiwanese-American under the SECOND way to qualify as a hyphenated American.  Listing both is the only way to go.   We're lucky-- Wu's only Chinese-American and Taiwanese-American.  Einstein has three classifications,  and I'm sure there are people who have four or five. --Alecmconroy 06:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we use a sentence like "David Wu is the first person of Chinese ancestry and the first person from Taiwan to ...." Green caterpillar 23:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I think we have it taken care of now. I'm still skeptical in terms of people changing it to match their personal beliefs, but we'll see what happens. I watch this page closely as well as some others. Davidpdx 06:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Soapboxing
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I say this to all of you who have super strong feelings on this issue-- you know who you are. If you have a strong political agenda, you must be VERY careful to not let it affect your editing. Being an editor is a duty not unlike being a judge-- if a case is too close to your heart, you should strongly consider recusing yourself. By all means, keep discussing on the talk page, but leave the actual editing to more objective people. That's not a blanket rule, but it is an ethical obligation. I know in the back of my mind, I have a set of pages I will never, ever edit, because I care about them too much. --Alecmconroy 05:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Many editors forget the initial meaning of wikipedia, which is providing encyclopedia info to educate the public. No propagandas here. That is why I choose to discuss instead of edit warring with other user (you know who).--Bonafide.hustla 05:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alec, I agree what what your saying. However, I don't have anything vested in this except to maintain non-bias and consistancy. Maybe you should ask Jiang what his motives are?  Full Disclosure: I am a resident of Portland Oregon and a registered voter of Oregon who frequently works on Wikipedia articles about Oregon politicians.  Davidpdx 05:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * David, my comment was not directed at you unless you have strong political feelings about the Taiwan-China issue. If you know in your heart that's not you, then you can ignore it.  --Alecmconroy 06:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alec, thanks. I hope you don't take what I say personally (even if it's not intended toward you). My point is that I'm willing to disclose my biases (see above), but others are not willing to do so, saying it doesn't matter. Wow, if that were the case I could go to the George W. Bush article and really have some fun!


 * In terms of editing, some still have to learn to control their personal biases. If that means going to mediation or arbitration, then so be it. I've been there before in terms of stopping POV pushing and will do it again if it takes going through those steps. Davidpdx 06:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote User:Hmains from Talk:List of Chinese Americans: All the Ethnic Group list articles are meant to simply list people who (themselves or their ancestors) immigrated from a particular country. This existing 'list of Chinese Americans' article is, or should be, those people who came from China (mainland); the existing 'list of Taiwanese Americans' article are those people who came from Taiwan. No politics here. No culture here. No self-reference questions of the people involved--who knows what is in their minds. Just geographic facts. Anything else should be removed as not NPOV. Thanks Also, I don't know why RevolverOcelotX is commenting here. His comments are unhelpful and his contributions are a long list of Taiwan-China relations POV and edit wars. --Bonafide.hustla 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bonafide.hustla, Hmains is entitled to his opinion but it is not necessarily NPOV. The sources clearly says David Wu is a Chinese American. To claim otherwise is a original research. Regarding soapboaxing, contributions are a long list of Taiwan-China POV pushing and edit warring ever since his initial arrival to Wikipedia. RevolverOcelotX


 * Hmains is entitle to his opinion, but I don't share it, at least not applied to this situation. If a person SAYS they're Chinese-American, then they're Chinese-American, unless we can prove that claim is utterly untenable. --Alecmconroy 06:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, whether someone IS or IS NOT pushing a POV, I don't think we can use that fact when we're actually evaluating the validity of that point of view. Ya know? Saying someone has strong feelings about an issue just means they should DISCUSS their view rather than directly inserting them. But when it comes to actually deciding the validity of their suggestions, WHO they hare has no bearing on WHAT they say. If Adolf Hiter tells me to look both ways before crossing the street, it's still true. If Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, and Lao Tzu all tell me that 2+2=22, it's still not true. --Alecmconroy 06:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but mediation or RfA is definitely the way to go since there is no way of resolving this dispute going in circles.--Bonafide.hustla 06:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with BH on this one. Someone who has such a strong overt bias shouldn't be editing articles having to do with that subject. Please go take a look at the history of the article of Dominion of Melchizedek. This is a similar situation where someone who was personally involved in the article constantly POV pushed. I think who says it does have a bearing on what they say.


 * Alec, you have tried your best to help and I appreciate it. Maybe some other people will have a chance to comment (seeing as though this is the first day of the rfc I'm willing to wait a few days before the next step is taken to see what happens). One of the problems is that there are no compromises (other then the one you made). As I said, I hope you don't take it personally. Davidpdx 06:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. When I made the comment about Soapboxing, I want to be clear, I wasn't just being snide when I said "you know who you are", I mean, literally, only the individual knows who they are.  I'm not going to look through edit histories, I'm not going to figure out who's who, I'm going to debate the issue itself.  I understand your natural tendency to resist someone you see as POV pushing-- we all have it, that reflexive pushing-back of people we perceive as trying to intentionally bias the encyclopedia. But we're beyond that now-- he's not the one saying we should have both, I'm the one saying it now, and I'm not Taiwanese, Chinese, or Both, I'm just Oregonian :).  So, the "do the opposite of what the POV pusher wants" rule doesn't work here.  We should warn everyone not to POV push, but now we have to debate the issue, not the people. --Alecmconroy 06:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Cooling off period
It's obvious that all parties need a cooling off period. I'm willing to wait and see what happens in terms of other comments on the RFC for a few days, if others involved are willing to simply leave the article alone for now. Davidpdx 06:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Having left a message on a few people's talk page, I really don't think the current changes are going to work. For now, I think all comments in terms of ethnicity and race need to be removed including categories until the dispute can be resolved. I also question if this was left as it is, whether certain people would leave it alone, or simply wait a few days and make changes regardless of what was decided or compromised on.

That being said, I am living messages on the talk page of the three people who have been discussing this making them aware that there has been no agreement. Davidpdx 07:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it much matter's what is on a page while a NPOV dispute is on-going, so long as the NPOV warning tag is up. But, let's talk about what the consensus should look like.  David, do you still object to calling Wu a Chinese-American in light of the revelation that Wu's parents were from mainland China?  I mean-- if Wu's Chinese parents had moved to Canada instead of Taiwan, wouldn't he still qualify as a Chinese-American?  --Alecmconroy 07:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is going to shock you, but yes I would be willing to leave it on one condition. That Jiang refrains from editing this page. My feeling is that he won't leave it alone and in a week or two we will find the Taiwanese references removed. On that condition I'm willing to do it, if any only if he agrees to leave it alone. Davidpdx 07:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool beans. Well, if you're cool with it, then let's put it back up and see if it sticks.  I think denying that Wu is Taiwanese-American is a very hard case to make.  I mean, he WAS born in Taiwan, he WAS a citizen of Taiwan.  I've cited notable, verifible sources that clearly refer to him as the first Taiwanese-American congressman.  The new compromise wording is very careful to never say Wu is Chinese-American or Taiwanese-American-- it merely says he is "considered" to be both-- a fact that is undeniable, as I've cited journalistic sources that do in fact consider him such.  If Jiang or anyone else feels this text should be changed, by all means talk about it, but editing it away from the compromise wording before a consensus has formed would be a mistake, and that would just result in the whole kit-and-kaboodle getting pulled out of the article, and this whole thing going straight to ArbCom. --Alecmconroy 08:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles should be written through proper investigation of references to arrive at text that is both neutral and verifiable. The solution here is not to compromise; it is to achieve consensus. There's no reason to agree to banish me from this article when we are all mentally capable of discussing the issues and arriving at some sort of consensus. Here's my problem: I'm feeling some sort of disconnect from my end. I post what I believe are facts regarding the self-identification of Taiwanese in Taiwan and abroad and instead of comments of rebuttal or agreement in response to my posts, I'm simply noted for having some sort of "bias" and being a "POV pusher". I feel that while I am trying to discuss the issues and content, you are responding only with comments about my behavior. I'm really having a tough time understanding why you believe what you do, despite the comments I have posted. I keep trying to fish a response out of you, but I feel I keep getting ignored. Please work with me here, not against me. I can't understand what you are thinking if you don't elaborate.--Jiang 08:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm in opinion we are coming to a consensus. The thing is I'm willing to agree to the changes with the references you added, if you agree not to change it. Yes, for all intensive purposes I'm asking you not to mess with this article. Maybe that's wrong, but it does end a conflict. What I'm saying is I don't want to fight, I'm willing ot drop my objections and go with what has Alec wrote.


 * I watch this article quite a bit, as I do with all other ones in terms of Oregon politicians. Why? Because I want to make sure they remain netural. People come on, often with only IP's and add stuff that really shouldn't be there. No, it's not ownership but more or less I do try to take care of the articles. You'd be amazed how often campaigns try to come on and post stuff (I think there was a bunch of stuff posted about this recently on political articles of all kinds). What I'm also saying is I'm willing to watch it and make sure it stays that way as well.


 * I've tried explaining how I feel and it's gotten me nowhere. So, regardless of how the outcome looks, I'm trying to do with the flow. If you want to go along with it and leave it alone, I'm agreeing to go along with it. The ball is firmly in your court. Please just give a yes or no answer. Davidpdx 08:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, please, please note I did not use your name when talking about POV pushing-- whether you are or are not, indeed, whether everyone here is or is not, is something they need to ask themselves.  It's not my place to accuse you-- I haven't accused you, I'm not going to accuse you.  Same for everyone else.  So, please, don't feel I've personally weighed in judgement on that issue.  I haven't, it doesn't interest me, and I'm not big on sitting in Judgement.


 * Secondly, however, I have to say-- you bring SOME of this on yourself. When you decorate your user page with political slogans, you can't be too upset when people begin to suspect you of having a political agenda. I'm not saying that you can't have those pictures up and still be neutral and non-POV Pushing-- you certainly can be.  But, having those pictures up and expecting not to be accused of POV-pushing by people who get into edit-wars with you-- that's being a little unrealistic. heheh.


 * Thirdly, we're making progress. We've got a consensus that Wu _is_ Chinese-American, which is more than we had three hours ago.  Now we just need consensus about his status as Taiwanese-American too.  I assume that when you urge elaboration on thinking, you're addressing david, not me-- I think (and hope) I've been quite clear on my thought-process.  Most people say I'm too verbose on these things.


 * Fourthly, let me turns some of the questions I asked David back to you now. Wu _was_ born in Taiwan, his citizenship was Taiwanese, his childhood was in Taiwan, and many people do regard him as qualifying as a Taiwanese-American for the very same reason Einstein qualifies as a Swiss-American.  He certainly is "The first person of former Taiwanese citizenship to have become a congressman", surely that fact is notable.  Why shouldn't we mention it?
 * --Alecmconroy 08:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, we are making progress, but I still want to hear Jiang say he is not going to mess with this down the road. This is something he has to do to show additonal good faith and to stop changing stuff. In return I'm willing to make sure the changes agreed upon stay. Davidpdx 08:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, all that was addressed to Jiang... Edit conflict, and it looks like I was talking to you. --Alecmconroy 08:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was actually my fault, I misread it. Sorry I took out the second paragraph of the above comments since I misattributed the 08:34 comments as directed to me. :) I'll wait to hear back from you guys tomorrow. I realize it's really late on the west coast. I'm on Korean time so there is about a 16 hour time difference. Davidpdx 08:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was addressing David in my previous comment.

Our goal here is to write a factual and comprehensive encyclopedia. While promoting perpetual social harmony is desirable, it is not our immediate goal and should not stand in the way of writing a factual and comprehensive encyclopedia. I am going to present my views here on how I think the current version of the article should be changed, and I hope that everyone can respond by refuting or affirming these arguments:
 * 1) Wordiness: I think we can eliminate 12 words from the sentence in dispute without changing the neutrality and factualness of the article. "As an ethnically Chinese man who immigrated from Taiwan, Wu is considered to be both the first Chinese-American [1] and the first Taiwanese-American[2] member of the House of Representatives." can be shortened to "Wu is both the first Chinese American and the first Taiwanese American member of the House of Representatives". First, being "ethnic Chinese" is inherent in the term "Chinese American." Second, his immigration from Taiwan is repeated a few lines down in the "background" section, though I could live with something like "originally from Taiwan..." Third, "considered to be" is weasel wording that adds no new information to the article because the terms "Chinese American" and "Taiwanese Americans" are social constructs: people are defined as what themselves and everyone else labels them to be.
 * 2) Formatting: "Chinese American" and "Taiwanese American" should be linked to and unhyphenated to where the articles reside.
 * 3) Status of Taiwanese American: As with other labels, we have to rely on hard facts on Wu's origin, self-identification by Wu, indentification in the media, and identification by other community groups. First the hard facts: Alec cites Wu's birthplace and original citizenship as sufficient cause to label him as "Taiwanese American". However, the claim that "Taiwanese citizenship" exists, or whether this automatically constitutes Chinese citizenship is itself disputed. The PRC would argue that as Taiwan is a province, it cannot issue citizenship, but this argument isn't important since citizenship isn't implied in the term. A more important consideration is that the term "Taiwan citizen" was not applied in any official capacity by the ROC until about a couple years ago. Until about 2002, the signs at the immigration booths at Chiang Kai-shek International Airport read "Chinese citizens" and "Foreigners" before they changed them to "Citizens" and "Non-Citizens". For decades, the KMT administration and US government considered Taiwanese to be Chinese citizens and until 1994, those born in Taiwan were noted as being born in "China" on US passports. Certainly in David Wu's time as a "Taiwanese citizen", he travelled to the US using a passport issued by a government recognized by the US and most countries as "China". To dispute this were Taiwanese independence activists who were either underground or exiled and Wu and his family doesn't look like one. Second, the identification: There are a few media sources labelling Wu as "Taiwanese-American", as opposed to Elaine Chao, so this is less clear cut. However, I could not find anything through google search on Wu agreeing or implying to be Taiwanese while quite a number implying to be Chinese. The political attitude among waishengren before the Taiwan localization movement was to identify with their mainland province of origin and not with Taiwanese. Without hard facts, I would prefer to leave this out of the intro and keep the category, but I don't feel really strongly on this and can live with it staying in the article.

In the meantime, I hope we can all agree not to edit the article until the discussion has ended.--Jiang 09:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you make some interesting points. For starters, wikilinking and dehyphenating the terms "Chinese American" and "Taiwanese American" should be completely and utterly uncontroversial-- I'll make that change now.  Thanks for pointing it out-- I should have done it that way to begin with.  The hyphen makes more sense to me logically, but looking around at Wikipedia articles, it's clear that dehyphenated IS the standard usage, so that's clearly the way to go.


 * You suggest shortening the sentence. Brevity is always good, but on a situation this complex, I would tend to error on the side of wordiness if it buys us some extra neutralness. You say "Ethnic Chinese" is inherent in the phrase "Chinese American"-- but actually, it's not!  Though I've never heard of a single example myself, someone could be a "former citizen of China" without being "ethnically Chinese", but said person could reasonably claim to be a Chinese American, for the very same reason that the German-born Jew Albert Einsten would later become a Swiss American.  Plus the phrase  "As an ethnically Chinese man who immigrated from Taiwan" nicely sets up how he can be BOTH Chinese and Taiwanese american--  I think it would be hard to follow the logic if we didn't prepare the reader with this introductory clause.     Think how many words we've expended on this-- I think we can spare 9 measeley word to cue the reader in to how someone can be more than one ____-American.


 * I'm much more open to shortening the "Wu is considered to be..." to simply "Wu is..."  Honestly, I had put "considered to be" there for you, in deference to what I imagine would be your take on the whole thing.  I assumed you would dispute the claim that "Wu is Taiwanese American", on the grounds that Taiwan is not a real nation, and therefore it is false to say "Wu is a Taiwanse American".  I actually love weasel words, when properly referenced.  Those two little weasel words transform "Wu is the first Taiwanese American...", a sentence we could debate about forever, into "Wu is considered to be the first Taiwanese American...",  a sentence that is verifiably true.  Now, if you're comfortable saying "Wu is Taiwanese American" and everyone else is fine with it,  then sure, I'm fine with it to.  But given the controvery, "considered to be" is more neutral, so we might want to stick with it.


 * Yes, I realize that we couldn't find any instances of Wu self-identifying as Taiwanese American, but he is a de facto one, many people call him that, and I have no sign he's ever eschewed the term. I expect most immigrant, particularly those in politics, prefer the ethnic-American terms (e.g.  Jewish American) to the nationality terms (e.g. Swiss American) because the latter imply some sort of mixed political allegiances, whereas the former do not.  Now, if Wu had come out somehow and said "I am _NOT_ a Taiwanese American, I am a _CHINESE_ American"--  boy, I don't know WHAT we'd do then.   I guess make a whole section about the controversy, lol.   Fortunately, this is a worst-case scenario that we are not facing.


 * So.. I'll make the wikilinks and dehyphen, and if David et. al. are cool with shortening to _is_, we can do that too.    Yay consesnsus!
 * --Alecmconroy 11:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I briefly read what you guys said. It is getting late here and I'm starting to get tired.


 * I'm fine with removing the weasel words and just put, "Wu is the first Chinese and Taiwanese American Congressman." I really don't want to have a bunch of clutter in terms of descriptions that go into too much detail. That is how this got started.


 * Alec, I say change it and I'll look at it in the morning. If there is something that needs to be changed, I'll post something on the talk page and send you an email as well. Davidpdx 13:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you still want the part about Ethnically Chinese but immigrant from Taiwan? OR would you want to chop it down to JUST "Wu is the first Chinese Ameican congressman and the first Taiwanese American Congressman."? I'm pretty much okay with anything, if you an Jiang both agree to it ahead of time.


 * Well, I take back. Don't literally say "Wu is the first Chinese and Taiwanese American Congressman", because that implies he is the first congressman who is both Chinese AND Taiwanese, but that there might be other congressman who are Chinese but not Taiwanese and Taiwanese but not Chinese, and he is first person who is BOTH.   But.. OTHER than that, I think whatever fine, so long as it's truly consensus-supported.
 * --Alecmconroy 19:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That can be avoided by repeating "the first" as is done in the current text. --Jiang 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alec, I am willing to go with the shortened version that is still up right now. I think anything else gets too wordy. Davidpdx 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm also willing to go with the version although I don't fully agree with it. But only on the ground that Jiang promises to leave it alone.--Bonafide.hustla 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alec, one thing that hasn't occurred yet, is that Jiang has not stated he will leave this alone. Again my fear is that he will change this in a week or two to the version he sees fit, thus breaking the consensus that's been achieved. Myself and BH have both agreed to go along with the current version only if he agrees to leave it alone.


 * If Jiang is not willing to openly promise to leave the article as is, then I won't agree to the changes and we are going to have to go back and argue everything point by point again. Thus I think we have to take a look at going back to a version with no mention of nationality or ethnicity (other then the fact he was born in Taiwan) if there is no response within 24 hours of this post. Davidpdx 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, this should be resolved by consensus, not compromise. If you still do not believe either label belongs in the article, then please argue your point here and we can hash it out here. The precedent in resolving edit wars (even though there isn't really an edit war...yet) is to revert to the version before the dispute began. I am opposed to removing information from the article, if done by an interested party and if done without proper justification.
 * No, I cannot promise to leave the article as is. It is in everyone's interests that we make all our intentions and opinons known. I can only promise to refrain from making any controversial changes to the article as long as the discussion is ongoing and the issue is unresolved. --Jiang 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We have achieved at least a hopeful consensus, but again you refuse to cooperate. I've asked you to promise to leave it alone. The answer you are giving me is no.


 * Alec has worked hard to change the wording to get where we are. I have agreed to abide by it. You have not, instead you (by your words) give the perception that you are going to change it and break consensus. If there is a specific problem with the current version, then say it. Otherwise, you should agree to abide by it. I have asked for that promise and your refusal makes me very much question your intentions. Davidpdx 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not that easy for me to mess things up, even if I wanted to. I can do as you say and agree with everyone now and then come back two weeks later to change the article to something counter to the argreement...but then, what happens? You're watching this article, Alec is watching this article, and Bonafide is watching this article and one of you is bound to respond with REVERT and something angry on this talk page. Without agreement, it is not possible for me to unilaterally get my way. I don't see the need to worry because there's no point in doing what you suspect me of doing. And you'd think that if I am here solely to spread political propaganda, then I would have been outed by now...but there isn't even a RFC against me. Please consider assuming good faith.
 * Without any new information, I am fine with the content on the page as it is now. However, I would like to see the wording of the disputed sentence changed to something shorter, like "As an ethnic Chinese from Taiwan, Wu is the first Chinese American and also the first Taiwanese American member of the House of Representatives".--Jiang 13:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

clarification
I think we're heading into a wrong direction here. Jiang argued Wu's Taiwanese identity is controversial. It is not. As long as you're born in Taiwan, you're a de facto Taiwanese. The version now is implying Taiwanese and Chinese can be used interchangably or even worse Taiwanese is a subgroup of Chinese, which is a political agenda a lot of "Chinese nationalist" is pushing. A thorough explanation that details the complicated situation of Wu's ethnicity is essential to ensure the neutrality of this article. Wu IS a Taiwanese American; however, he also claims to be a Chinese American. I think we're missing the point here. Basically, people who are born in Taiwan or have Taiwanese citizenship are Taiwanese Americans, people who has Chinese citizenship are Chinese Americans. It's simple as that. --Bonafide.hustla 20:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bonafide.hustla, it's called original research and it is not allowed. All articles must be based on information from reliable sources. The sources here clearly identify David Wu as a Chinese American. To claim otherwise is a violation of WP:NOR. RevolverOcelotX


 * First of all, I don't see how he's claiming origional research. The most common type of origional research on Wikipedia that I see people try to stick into articles are blogs. He is simply making an arguement because he disagrees with the direction we are going and he's entitled to do so.


 * Second, if you can't contribute something to this conversation please don't post on this talk page. What you are doing could be considered trolling and is disruptive. I've asked you once to stop, if you persist I will be reporting you to an admin. Davidpdx 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Davidpdx, how is my comment on here considered "trolling" and "disruptive"? What is claiming is clearly original research on his part and it is not allowed. Bonafide.hustla claiming that "people who are born in Taiwan or have Taiwanese citizenship are Taiwanese Americans, people who has Chinese citizenship are Chinese Americans" is clearly original research because it is not true and cannot be backed up by reliable sources, an official policy.


 * I've left a message on your talk page. Again, if you can contribute something worthwhile other then telling people they are doing something they are not, then your being disruptive. Your claim that he is violating NOR is bogus. Please refrain from commenting any further. Davidpdx 03:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See... this is one of the problems with NOR, and why it is my "least favorite of the core policies, despite it still being important". To me, NOR most properly applies to the ARTICLE text, not to the discussion pages.  On the discussion pages, people say all kinds of things that aren't true and can't be proven.  Often, we use NOR as a convenient shorthand to say "What you said is wrong, you can't prove it, and you're the only one who's thinks that".  However, then confusion abounds, because as in this case, the fact itself ("Wu is Taiwanese") isn't original, but the thought processes guiding the article formation ("Born in Taiwan means Taiwanese, not Chinese, and it's that simple") is original research.  So calling something NOR then becomes ambiguous.


 * So, as it's been pointed out. Bonafide, things just aren't that simple.  An black man who lived his whole life Taiwan before coming to the US would be both an African-American AND, quite possibly, a Taiwanese-American.  Revolver is correct to dispute Bonafide, though admittedly, saying Bonifide's reasoning is "NOR" is a slightly less clear than just saying it is "wrong".  And David is correct to be reticent about people who have strong feelings about political agendas, but keep in mind, having a strong POV is not a mortal sin, and the most we can ask from even the most strident POV Pusher is merely that they be extra careful not to push that POV when editing the actual article-- not the talk page.
 * --Alecmconroy 10:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And for the record, has been mass POV pushing on many Taiwan/China articles. See all his contributions for evidence. I am clearly trying to contribute in good faith on here. Please don't label a content dispute you don't agree with as "trolling" and "disruptive". Thanks. --RevolverOcelotX 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is all part of RevolverOcelotX campaign against me. He is turning from an anti-Taiwanese person to someone who read over my contributions then reverts all my edits, spam all the users/admins I contacted, and disrupt the discussion I am engaged in. Anyway see my talkpage for details. I definitely need some admin intervention here because the guy is stalking me.--Bonafide.hustla 00:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bonafide.hustla, please refrain from falsely accusing myself and other editors as "anti-Taiwanese". Also, Bonafide.hustla, labeling content disputes as "disruption" and "vandalism" will get you nowhere and reflects poorly on your ability to achieve consensus. Please refrain from doing so. Thanks. --RevolverOcelotX 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bonafide.hustla, if you would like to be convincing or otherwise prove me wrong, then you have to back up your claims with examples and references. The claim that "As long as you're born in Taiwan, you're a de facto Taiwanese." is utterly unconvincing. Just because you are born somewhere does not mean that you are autonomatically associated with the adjectival form of that place. Notably, such descriptions do not apply to refugee groups, which David Wu's parents were part. We do not call Pearl Buck "Chinese American" or John McCain "Panamanian American" simply because they were born a certain place. RevolverOcelotX brings up a point here: call people what they are if that is being done by the media, in published sources, and through common convention.
 * Taiwanese and Chinese can be used interchangably. There is no disputing that such a usage and convention exists in the real world. The dispute is is over whether this applies at the individual level, of Taiwanese independence supporters refusing to be associated with the latter and Chinese nationalist mainlanders refusing to be associated with the former. If you are afraid that the Taiwan independence viewpoint isn't being represented here, then the argument by independence supporters should be that people in Taiwan should either accept that they now reside in Taiwanese permanently and deny being Chinese, or they should "Go back to China". David Wu clearly leans towards one side... What you are arguing here is basically argued by no one else. --Jiang 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we have hit on the real solution here, and that is, not for us to ever make the leap from "Born in Taiwan/China" to "Taiwanese/Chinese" ourselves-- to consider that leap, as simple as it seems on the face of it, a violation of NOR.  Instead, we let the secondary sources do that leap for us, and we just cite those sources.  In this specific case, it clearly results in him Wu being described as both.   --Alecmconroy 09:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead section
I proposed on July 31 (the last post to the #Cooling off period section) to have the wording shortened to cut out the weasel wording. No one responded, so I assume there is no objection to the change.

My reasons: First, "ethnic Chinese" is more grammatical than "ethnically Chinese." Second, it is obvious David Wu is a man. Third, saying he's from Taiwan already implies he immigrated; it is unnecessary to add the extra wording. Fourth, "is considered to be" adds absolutely no information to the sentence. Considered by whom? Everyone? --Jiang 15:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for taking out "ethnically Chinese" without discussing first. I further propose to change "As an ethnic Chinese from Taiwan" to "Originally from Taiwan" or "Born in Taiwan" since it is obvious that he is ethnic Chinese, as is 98% of the population of Taiwan. If it is not obvious enough, then it can go in the first section after the lead, but I don't see ethnicity being brought up in any other comparable article.--Jiang 15:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you and Davidpdx has a miscommunication on this. Obviously, he does have an objection to your July 31 proposal.  I rather like the compromise wording that has remained since the Summer, and I even more like the idea of not digging up this whole issue again.  Honestly, it doesn't have that much to do with David Wu what we call him-- it's really an issue about China-vs-Taiwan that just happens to be playing out on the David Wu page, as part of a larger wikipedia-wide dispute,  and I don't especially think it's helping us make a better encyclopedia to have all these Taiwan-China debates.  The current wording conveys Wu's background well enough, let's just leave it be. --Alecmconroy 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you object to my proposed text, then please say why here. What is wrong with it and how is it not an improvement over the existing text? And why do you prefer your text over my text? --Jiang 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My main concern is to not have major edit war over the subject again. The last time everyone was here, this was the compromise working that got agreed upon, and Davidpdx seemss to have objected.  About the specific change-- I do think that "considered to be both the first chinese-american and first taiwanese-american" is a nice phrase to include, because it is 100% verifiable.  No one can dispute that Wu is considered to be both those things.  Whereas-- _is_ Wu "chinese" or "taiwanese" is a whole bigger can of worms.  I don't particularly object to the "ethnic" vs "ethnically" change, assuming no one else does.  --Alecmconroy 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to avoid an edit war, then that is what discussing the content is for. It has been long proposed to have articles in Wikipedia be frozen once they have reach sufficient quality. This proposal been repeatedly shot down. Freezing parts of articles for the sake of procedure and not for the sake of preserving superior content goes counter to everything wikipedia is about.

If you are concerned that not everyone agrees to Wu's status as either a Chinese American or a Taiwanese American, then adding "considered to be" doesn't solve the problem. As there is no subject assigned to the consideration, we can only assume that the subject is everyone, so the meaning - with or without the phrase - is unchanged. The essence is that "Chinese American" and "Taiwanese American" are social constructs that already imply general consideration: if enough people believe these terms to apply, then they are the truth. Nowhere else has it been necessary to add "considered to be" everywhere these terms are applied to individuals - there is no precedent.--Jiang 19:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly speaking you did not propose that in the July 31st post, I've gone back and looked. I feel this is just another attempt to push what you think is correct versus what was agreed upon. When we agreed on this, I said something along the lines that I very much doubted you would abide by the agreement. It turns out I was correct. I'm deeply disappointed in not only the changes you made, but the agreement you broke.


 * You act like it's everyone else's fault you edited this. Take responsiblity for godsakes. If you would work with people in good faith (according to the rules) maybe more people would be willing to help come up with something that is agree upon.


 * Here is the edit you made (I'm copying it so that it is on the talk page):
 * As an ethnic Chinese from Taiwan, Wu is the the first Chinese American.


 * Here is what I'm willing to agree to:
 * As an ethnice Chinese for Tawian, Wu is the first Chinese American and Taiwanese American in the US Congress.


 * As I said, I didn't change any other part of your edits because I thought they were really good. I hope this is something that we can agree upon. Davidpdx 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My proposal is here, plain and obvious: . If you can't find it, then look towards the last sentence of the post.
 * I waited three months, which is more that what is usually required for wikipedia. I'm really bothered by your attitude, especially since you're openly flouting Wikipedia etiquette and conventions being rude, judgemental, and belittling, and blatantly assuming bad faith. In my 3.5 years here, I've got lots of crap thrown at me, but I've never been seriously treated as crappily as this. I'm not faulting anyone: I'm simply assuming plain and fair that silence means no opposition. That's how things work here. There is no such thing as agreement in determining content in articles; what goes and what stays is determined by consensus. A consensus is not the same as an agreement. Now that there is opposition, I'm waiting for a consensus before I revert or alter that sentence again. I don't see anything wrong.
 * Your proposal, minus the obvious spelling errors, is identical to the change I made to the article. Please note that the sentence extends beyond the first citation. It looks like we agree then. What's the problem?--Jiang 06:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's probably true that no where else do we use the phrase "considered to be". But precident be damned.  Wu is a unique situation, and given the huge bru-ha-ha going on about chinese-vs-taiwanese, I favor erroring on the side of verbosity.  Yes, I agree that they are both social contructs, and I agree that "Wu is Chinese" means "Wu is considered to be Chinese"-- but many I suspect many people _don't_ agree with that.  I might also say that "Taiwan is not China" because to me that just means "Right now, most people use the word "Taiwan" to refer to that area of land, rather than the word "China".  But as we learned, that is, in fact, an incredibly controversial statement, and no matter how self-evident it might seem to me that a person's race or a piece of land "is" X if and only if most people consider X to be the name for that race or region-- in fact, we can get into huge arguments about whether or not that is so.


 * By explicitly saying "is considered to be", we short circuit the whole process, because no one can argue that some people do consider Wu to be those things.  If absolutely no one objects to replacing the "is considered to be" with simply "is", then I won't argue-- but  my suspicions, based on the last edit war, is that people will object, on the grounds that Wu "isn't" Chinese or Wu "isn't" Taiwanese-- in which case, "is considered to be" is the most accurate and most neutral terminology. --Alecmconroy 05:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Davidpx has proposed the very change I made to the article. We agree there.
 * But the statement does not say "some people consider Wu to be"; it says "Wu is considered to be". The latter implies everyone; the former does not. In any case, I don't see any evidence of people disputing the statement "Wu is Chinese" so I don't see the need. --Jiang 06:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, my main interest here is that this not be a battleground on the Taiwan-China dispute. All we need to know about Wu is that both titles are applied to him, and I'll tend to oppose any controversial deviation from the current wording.  The current consensus version that's lasted since summer does the job-- it tells us what we need to know about Wu, it's not blatantly violating NPOV, and it's fine, let's move on.   If everyone else can agree on a way to improve that wording, then i'm totally fine with that too-- I'm just a RFC referee type, and I don't have any strong feelings on the issue other than that it not become a major issue again. lol.  If everybody's cool with the change, then i'm cool with the change.  But if people aren't cool with it, then leave it be-- Wikipedia isn't going to be the place that the china-taiwan conflict is going to be resolved .    --Alecmconroy 06:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jiang claimed Taiwanese are Chinese is a blatant display of POV pushing. The main components of the Taiwanese population are of Hokko descendant but have been living in Taiwan for more than 700 years. The only disputed use of Chinese on a Taiwanese person is only in the case if he/she is a mainlander (ie. veteran that came with Chiang Kai-Shek from China). The classification of others is a controversial political issue.--Bonafide.hustla 02:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Like all of other bf's edits, which have been summarily reverted by a few other edits, this statement is based on false premises and blatantly wrong information.--Jiang 06:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is changed to what I stated in my last post, I'm fine with it. I just want to make sure both are mentioned for balance. Davidpdx 08:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Trekkie
Can anybody put up information on that Star Trek speech he did recently?