Talk:Asia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Afghanistan in table

Why isn't Afghanistan in the table for the list of countries?

Middle East should be its own region

Why can't the MIddle East be on the list of regions of the world. It already has an article but here it is just considered part of Asia.

The middle east is just a political term for South West Asia, it is a physical geographical part of the continent. Robwi 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right. The Middle East is its own region. The US government's foreign relations sector recognizes this fact. The US government's regional scheme is unrepresented here at the current time.--^DarkTea 12:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC):::Middle east is a political term, this page is about a geographical term Asia which the middle east is part of. EOD --–  Daimengrui  talk  20:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

West

• What is West Asia meant to refer to?
  • Usually, the term West Asia is a synonym for the Middle East, or southwest Asia. If the part of Russia west of the Ural Mountains was considered to be part of Asia, that would obviously make up a large part of (north)west Asia, but that's considered to be in Europe. Hope this helped!

---

The description of the seperation between Europe and Asia says "The boundary between Asia and Europe runs via the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, the Hellespont...". Now, according to the page on Hellespont, that word is simply the ancient name for Dardanelles. So, shouldn't Hellespont be replaced by Bosphorus? Gyan 01:30 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

---

Can someone please make a color coded map of what they differentiate between West, Central, SW, East, North, South and SE Asia?

---

A term: Greater Central Asia; meaning that of Asia that the Central Asian Republics have been influenced etc, http://www.international-relations.com/wbeurasia/WBEA-2003-Lec1.htm

Cyprus missing from the table, but included in the "Southwest asia"-region

in the table with countries Cyprus is missing (maybe becouse it is island) - this should be fixed (maybe with a note that it also is regareded as european country for xxx reasons - see the "Europe"-page)

Area of cross-continent countries

In the table with area sizes - the area for Turkey mentions the whole area of Turkey, including european part. Maybe this should change to include only the asian part. This is the Asia page, so when we list the area of some country we should list it's ASIAN territory - or at least a note should pe placed that gives explanation: Turkey total XXX sq.km = YYY asian + ZZZ european.

Other cross-continent countries have similar ommissions - Russia, Azerbaidjan, etc. - see Europe page for details. Similar case with Egypth - both asian and african territories, no distiction, no note ...

Suggest 3 possible wiki links for Asia.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Asia article:

• Can link land mass: ...ned by subtracting [[Europe]] and [[Africa]] from the great land mass of [[Africa-Eurasia]]. The boundaries are vague, especially...

landmass dabs to continent, which is already used. This link would not enhance the article. --Theo (Talk) 11:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Can link island nation: ...]], which comprises part of the nation of [[Turkey]] * The island nation of [[Cyprus]] in the [[Mediterranean Sea]].... (link to section)

Implemented. --Theo (Talk) 12:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Can link West Bank and Gaza Strip: ...uded, although they can also be considered part of Europe. West Bank and Gaza Strip are not listed separately, but combined as Palestinian terr... (link to section)

West Bank and Gaza Strip dabs to the individual territories so this is not an enhancement. --Theo (Talk) 12:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) --BrendanRyan 02:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sentences ok?

Are those sentences from the Southwest Asia section ok?

"Middle East is especially commonly used by Americans (althought frequently incorrectly - as though 'Middle East' and 'Asia' or 'Middle East' and 'Africa' are 2 different regions). 'Middle East' (to some interpretations) is occasionally used to also refer to countries in North Africa."

--BrendanRyan 08:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I think they need some work. The first one is just confusing. I think I know what you are getting at, but it might be clearer if expanded somewhat. I wouldn't use the term "incorrect". These are overlapping designations used for different purposes. It is not like someone has tried to divide the world into a set of discreet regions and accidently put some countries in two. Some people do not understand the distinctions between the terms, but that doesn't mean the terms themselves are "incorrect", just that some people are bad at geography.

I asked about those sentences because they were written by the same person who wrote really POV stuff in the North Asia article.--BrendanRyan 02:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the inclusion of parts of North Africa in the Middle East is only "occasional" so I'm going to change that myself. Wincoote 01:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

satellite image

Cantus, you removed my xplanet image, re-inserting the Plate Carrée Projection projection (without comment). Now, the reason I created that image was because that projection results in extreme distortion when showing a variation in latitude as great as required to show the entirety of Asia. I argue that the simulated 'satellite view' gives a superior impression of the shape as well as the size of the continent in relation to the globe. dab (ᛏ) 17:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Asia is not a continent??

Recently, I saw someone edit Asia (disambiguation) saying "Asia is not a continent". Anyone able to put this in detail?? Georgia guy 01:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did. Read Eurasia and Talk:Europe#continent or not. Geologists and geographers agree that the Asian continent doesn't exist; Eurasia does. Dividing Eurasia into Asia and Europe is a cultural distinction by Westerners. They may be separate regions, but they are not separate continents. Europe is geologically a peninsula of Eurasia, not even a subcontinent. - TAKASUGI Shinji 01:27, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Presenting as a fact that Asia is not considered a continent is just wrong. Why? Because plenty of people consider it to be a continent, "Westerners" are also people you know. Wikipedia should not present this POV as a fact. --Bjarki 23:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not a POV. In daily speech, the term continent refers to a world region including surrounding islands, thus Great Britain is a part of Europe and Japan is a part of Asia. Neither of them is a part of a geographical continent. Just see a map, and you'll see they are islands. - TAKASUGI Shinji 01:11, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Yes this is a POV. Asia is widely considered a continent on its own. This is not a question of right or wrong but simply of a different understanding of a term which has no universally accepted definition. Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. --Bjarki 12:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I am from Russia and my first thought was to cry that asia is not a continent and that continent by definition is a continuous land mass. But before answering I took a look at wikipedia article "continent" and found out that my point of view is taught in Russia and Japan - thats why me and Shinji think this way. There is written that the other point of view is taught in western europe and USA. However wikipedia also says that "Eurasian" point of view is prefered in scientific society. So my POV is still the same - Asia is not a continent.--User:Ilya 15:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if Russia and Japan do not recognize this concept. Then this article currently reflects a very biased "Western" point of view. I am glad you brought up these facts.--^DarkTea 12:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Many Americans also take the view that Eurasia is a continent, though admittedly, we are somewhat of a minority. However, commonly in American English, if you really listen to how people use the term, it almost always refers to Asia Pacific, non-inclusive of the Middle East. Middle East, for political reasons, or whatever, is really a region in its own right.

Manufacturing

The examples of companies and such is heavily Japanese. I think five countries are listed as being heavy manufacturers, maybe someone can make the list five examples, one from each, rather than four japanese and a korean company? SchmuckyTheCat 21:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current ratio is appropriate. The economy section of this article should be deleted though, because it is in the Economy of Asia. The followings are Asian companies in the top 100 in the Forbes International 500 (2003).

Japan:

4. Toyota Motor

5. Mitsubishi

6. Mitsui & Co.

9. Nippon Telegraph & Telephone

11. Itochu

14. Sumitomo

15. Marubeni

16. Hitachi

17. Honda Motor

20. Sony

21. Matsushita Electric Industrial

24. Nissan Motor

25. Nissho Iwai-Nichimen

37. Toshiba

50. Tokyo Electric Power

53. NEC

54. Fujitsu

66. Mitsubishi Motors

73. Mitsubishi Electric

79. Sumitomo Mitsui Financial

85. Mizuho Financial

87. Ito-Yokado

93. Nippon Oil

95. Aeon

96. Millea Holdings

98. Canon

100. KDDI

South Korea:

35. Samsung Electronics

65. Samsung

97. LG Electronics

China (including Hong Kong):

52. China Petroleum & Chemical

75. PetroChina

No company of other countries is listed in the top 100. India's largest one is Indian Oil Corp (#118), and Taiwan's largest one is Cathay Financial (#183).

Japan is too big to fit well in the Asian economy — Japan's nominal GDP is $4.7 trillion, while Asia's total nominal GDP is only $8.8 trillion, which means Japan accounts for more than a half of the economy of Asia. Japan, and perhaps South Korea, should be categorized in the economy of developed nations or something, not in the economy of Asia. The current version of this article has the following sentence, which is rather silly because there is no cheap labor in Japan, an economical half of Asia:

Many Western companies from Europe and North America have significant operations in Asia to take avantage of its abundant supply of cheap labour.

- TAKASUGI Shinji 09:15, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

needed changes and additions

there should be SEPARATE articles on west asia and southwest asia, and articles on northwest asia and northeast asia.

Gringo300 2 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)

ephesus?

so, what would be that celebrated Greek word for the plains of Ephesus? One would assume it was Asia, from Assuwa. These are not two separate possibilities, but a hypothesis of an Anatolian loan into Greek. dab (ᛏ) 18:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that sentence did not look right when I came upon it (I know of no such Greek term, besides Asia itself, from Ancient Greek). I erased that stuff added by who-knows-who. Alexander 007 18:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

However, the Akkadian etymology is widely quoted, so maybe it should be mentioned as of 2005. Alexander 007 18:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

well, the Greek term is probably from Assuwa. As for Assuwa, god knows, maybe from Akkadian (although Hitt. assu- "good" seems likely). dab (ᛏ) 19:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The Assuwa etymology does seem more likely, since we are dealing with the etymology of an Ancient Greek term (Asia) applied chiefly to Anatolia. Alexander 007 19:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Though why is it first attested in Herodotus if it is from Assuwa. You might expect Homer to use it at least once in the Iliad or Odyssey. Alexander 007 19:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

that's an argumentum ex silentio now. why should Homer not use it if it was from Akkadian? dab (ᛏ) 19:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That Asios name is interesting (that name is in a section of Book II of the Iliad that I've often went over, and I remember the name now; in that section describing the Trojan allies who fought for Troy). I don't know if it supports the Assuwa etymology, but it makes a Semitic origin less likely for me.

Hmm, you know what, I don't think it's from Akkadian or any other Semitic language, nor is it connected with the "rising" concept. Unfortunately, many references quote that etymology. Alexander 007 20:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Xia/Hsia

First of all, anonymous, you are wrong: that is not the most historically accepted (or in any way accepted) etymology of Asia, which is an Ancient Greek term most commonly derived from Akkadian asu. Second of all, I have seen no credible reference that supports the alleged Hsia etymology, so if you want to include it at all, provide a reference, because I have good references for the Akkadian etymology. In any case, you cannot say in a Wiki article that the Hsia etymology is "the most historically accepted", which is a plainly false statement.Alexander 007 18:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

a Chinese loanword in 5th century BC Greek? That would be quite singular. dab (ᛏ) 19:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Asius

I was relying on [1]

Asius, called Phrygian leader, served in the same company as Helenus and Deiphobus, sons of King Priam of Troy. Asius was the son of Hyrtacus and Arisbe, Priam 1's first wife.

but you are right I should have checked the text. dab (ᛏ) 21:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's okay, I'm just a bit dismayed that we have to mention this widely-quoted Akkadian etymology, which is likely wrong even though it's still given by AHD and other sources. Nevertheless, Wiki should probably mention it alongside other referenced etymologies. Alexander 007 21:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I got a question though: do references support the idea that Assuwa may be derived from the Akkadian word? If not, maybe we should present them as two conflicting etymologies. Alexander 007 21:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

well, let's be agnostic and call them unrelated. I don't have a problem with the Semitic etymology being present, but I do also think it is unlikely. For one thing, from the point of view of the Akkadians, the sun certainly didn't set in western Anatolia. dab (ᛏ) 22:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

bubonic plague

Does anyone know how the plague started in Asia?

Islands west of the Asian mainland

The article Geography of Asia labels all the islands in the Aegean Sea as European, while on the other hand the article Transcontinental country assign those islands closest to the mainland of Asia Minor to Asia. Which is more correct? Which criteria are to be used (geography or politics or history or infrastructure...etc.)? --Big Adamsky 20:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

"and also describes a marsh as 461" -- what is that supposed to mean? (too lazy to figure it out myself just now). dab (ᛏ) 22:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Asia is not a continent

We need to present this as the way Westerners thought about the world when they didn't know much about anything outside of Europe. Although "Asia" is used in many names and a common word, more properly, people are often referring to East Asia or Eurasian minus Europe, minus the Middle East (i.e. grab bag of stuff out to the East). As it stands, this article is crap.

Wikipedia takes on a world-view POV. Yo Mama is crap. Pirus 03:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually yo (your?) mama is crap (because she made you). I agree that Asia basically means all that land over there we don't know anything about. It is an obsolete and ridiculous term. So most people in the world think this or that, perhaps they are all wrong. Wikipedia doesn't reflect the world view, it reflects the truth, and this is the best opportunity to bring things forward.

Political/Geopolitical

Cite an example if you'd like. At major US universities, for example, there is often Middle East Studies, South Asian Studies, and East Asian Studies. There is no Asian studies because, now that us Westerners are a little more sophisticated, we don't dump everything we don't know about into a single grab bag anymore.

Okay, but it seems like you are trying to affect some kind of change in everyone's conventional thinking here, and wikipedia isn't supposed to be a vehicle for that... Asia as understood today and for centuries refers to the entire continent, as depicted on the map, if you have some different understanding you'd like everyone to accept, please make sure it isn't an original theory... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. You provide the citations if you want to move it beyond a historical concept to contemporary legitimacy as a continent. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's not just how people use words. It has to be backed up with scholarly sources or other reliable information.

I want to also add that you also need to have an international POV. I don't know where you're from, but your idea of Asia is a very particular one. It's a POV, and it should be recognized for what it is, not bandied about as if it's neutral. Even if you just think about how people use the word Asia, you realize that what people may define it as actually differs from how it's used. What do you think of when you hear the word Asians? Many people think of East Asians. So you need to recognize the problems and try to write the article from a NPOV.

"Traditional" and "Classic"

Ironically, it was not in the traditions of any Asian country to call Asia Asia. Classic (Greek) is not everyone else's classic (ie China's classic is... China). Thus we will be specific and clear in this article and call things what they really are--Greek/Westerner or whatever may be the case.

"Classical" as I used it, means as it was used in what is conventionally, and almost universally, called "The Classical World", including Greece and the Middle East. Greeks and Hellenes referred to the (originally Persian) lands East of Greece, as "Asia" -- whether they lived there themselves (as many of them did, hence "Asian Greeks") or whether they lived on the European side. This is the English wikipedia, not the Chinese, and that's what "Classical" means in English. As I stated before, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place or vehicle to try to engineer a drastic change in the standard perception everybody already has of things, whether you disagree with their perception or not... Asia is Asia, and anyone who says the term should suddenly stop being used, is coming out of left field; You actually ask for citation that Asia is still referred to as Asia; I don't think "Reader's Digest" (the widest circulation of any periodical in the USA) calls it anything different, just for starters... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Tidying up intro

Hello folks. I've taken the liberty of tidying up quite a bit in the introduction of what Asia is and is not. Specifically, Asia not a "landmass", nor is it a "vague concept". I have also removed sentences repeating or rephrasing a preceding sentence. Enjoy! =] //Big Adamsky 20:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

These are not reasons for your edits. Asia is a much more vague concept than you think. You have to provide reasons or counter other people's reasons if you're going to make edits like this. What you find "obvious" is exactly what other people challenge.

I appreciate your effort in gathering links that divide or group the worlds regions differently according to their various purposes. But if we start with the first sentence, it should simply state the common usage and extent of what and where Asia is. Whether you consult encyclopedias or school books they do not begin by calling Asia a "vague concept". Anyone whose field of study or interest is geography knows that continent is an unfortunate term if analyzed etymologically, but - much like the word Anti-Semitism - it has slipped its way into general usage; its meaning is "a large body of land", some of which are connected by a land bridge, as is the case with Africa and Asia and with North and South America. Shifting sea levels, drifting tectonic plates or man-made canals do not radically change this notion. There are two alternative words used in the German language, namely Weltteil and Erdteil, which convey the meaning of a "part of the world/earth" while avoiding the connotations of the Latin-based term continent.

When BBC-world or other global media outlets choose to sort their news by regions such as "Middle East" (Northern Africa+Western Asia) and "Asia-Pacific" (East Asia+Australasia+Pacific islands), this makes sense since what goes on within these areas is often interlinked.

I agree that a discussion of how the continents (as referred to for example in the Olympic flag) is problematic and that their roots in Antiquity (capitalized) reveals a "Hellene-centric" world view. But that should be explained in a separate paragraph, not in the intro. There is no "vague concept" in what or where Asia is located; it is one of the continents, the one where most of us live; it begins at Asia Minor and ends at Chukotka; it is conjoined to Africa at the isthmus of Suez and to Europe along the Caucasus and the Urals; and it is surrounded by various bodies of water; and some islands are conventionally considered as belonging to Asia; and some states or peoples are conventionally grouped along with states and peoples outside of Asia. I hope this helps... Hakuna matata! :O) //Big Adamsky 14:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

IMPT: Real use citations of Asia and why it's much more vague than you think

The following is an extensive list of citations for why Asia as a concept is 1) vague 2) not really used the way that people would normally define it. Although this is an English language wikipedia, it is not an American one nor a British one, and it should be written in a way that is as NPOV as possible, regardless of where the English reader is from. Let the citations begin:

1) NYT: http://www.nytimes.com Click on International, and you see that their division of news separates into 1) Asia Pacific and 2) Middle East.

2) WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com The second of the Big Two newspapers in the US; between them, they ARE US news. Here is a more interesting division of regions, with there being an Asia/Pacific category. But coexisting with Asia + Pacific is Middle East. So is the ME part of Asia or not? Unlike below,

3) CNN: http://www.cnn.com Asia edition focuses on East Asia inclusive of what is normally thought of as its own continent, Australia. The Middle East does not seem to be a market it caters to within any category. Because CNN is mainly a broadcast medium, these categorizations probably have a lot to do with time zones. Still, this is how the word is ACTUALLY being used by one of the most popular English language tv stations in the entire world.

3) AskAsia.com Check maps at: http://www.askasia.org/teachers/Instructional_Resources/Materials/Maps/index.htm Notice how Russia doesn't seem to really be included. Notice also that the Middle East is in there but it's not--a lot of it is cutoff. From these maps, if we say what we see clearly depicted in all maps is Asia, then the western part of the ME doesn't appear to be a part of Asia.

4) University of Texas library maps. U of T is one of the largest universities in the US, if not the largest: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/asia_pol00.jpg Notice first of all, that labelling it Asia is not good enough. They label that category of maps Middle East and Asia. This particular map is only of Asia and guess what--Russia is included, but the Middle East, from the western border of Iran and west is excluded.

5) Asia society: http://www.asiasociety.org/about/ They are one of the foremost organizations dedicated to educating people about Asia-Pacific, which, interestingly enough, also only includes countries up to Iran. It does not include the Middle East in general.

6) Asia Development Bank: http://www.adb.org/Countries/default.asp They don't include the ME as part of Asia as well, though with so many oil rich countries, admittedly, they might not think they need any help.

This is just for starters. Basic lessons: The ME doesn't apparently get included in Asia much of the time. Russia has quasi-inclusion status as well. Asia is clearly vague and clearly a weak concept in that people use it many times to mean East Asia + South Asia + Southeast Asia. No Middle East.

Here's an additional example: http://usembassy.state.gov/ It's really questionable how salient this traditional breakdown of continents is. The US state dept breaks down embassy listings into Americas, East Asia and Pacific, South Asia, Europe, Eurasia, and Africa. Interesting right?

Responses

Unfortunately, despite everything above, the intro is now inaccurate and asserts only one POV that is inconsistent with other citable information. If at all, this should coexist with other definitions, if applicable, and not prevail (e.g., now there's no mention of continent at all in intro). For example, two dictionaries – Oxford and Webster's – both list and reckon seven continents: Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Feel free to verify this in those and other publications. Of course, other definitions are based on culture, geology, seismology, ecology, et al. To that end, I will be making editions that restore prior edits and embrace the ambiguity, not just the uncited 'concept' stated therein. E Pluribus Anthony 12:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking up the real world use of words is a way of verifying whether a dictionary is actually correct or not. Dictionaries are like molasses--slow. That's where a project like wikipedia shines. Words that should've made the dictionary a long time ago are often many years late. You have to be specific with why the above is dismissable. The current intro does embrace ambiguity (it says that it is so), while at the same time, giving the old staid dictionary definition. Merriam Webster for example, only mentions the Ural Mountains, so there's no consensus that the other borders (west of Black Sea) are clear.

Yes: however, using these sources to substantiate solitary assertions that Asia is a "concept" and not a continent is POV and should not supercede information otherwise. Have you cited any source that states Asia is noted as a "concept"? You are asserting this viewpoint despite other references: I've cited dictionaries that challenge your position, but can also cite Britannica or any number of publications and atlas that further verify my position and elaborate on appropriate definitions. I've made editions to better balance the ambiguity of the relevant definitions, but please discuss and garner consensus before editing substantially otherwise. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony 14:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The intro does not say that it is a concept. This is a moot point. It says that it is a continent now. No need to cite what NPOV is. I'm familiar.

I beg to differ and it's not moot. If you invoke what NPOV is, don't make make edits that are clearly POV, cannot be verified, and challenge cited definitions; they'll be corrected. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a democracy. E Pluribus Anthony 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiki is not a democracy because sometimes the masses are wrong--in this case, you're the masses that's wrong. Excuse me for pointing out that "continents are concepts" was a sentence that I did not insert and has been long in this article. Further, you didn't make a correction to that part of the sentence. I can only conclude that you are targetting my changes specifically for no reason. Saying that it is a concept of a continent is consistent with that sentence that follows. How come you didn't edit that sentence then?

I beg to differ for numerous reasons. One: from the get-go, you have contended that Asia is a vague "concept", superceding traditional notions and definitions (cited, verifiable, etc.) of Asia as a continent. I do not deny that continents are concepts (as already stated), but you are rebuilding the intro to satisfy your POV and further promoting vagary. I appreciate attempts to open up the intro, but (two) your other edits are badly structured (IMHO) and neither here nor there. Three: you are likely wrong (without "mass" support), as your edits were reverted by one other during our discourse. Until you can demonstrate why your viewpoint should prevail, I'll make edits (and reverts, if necessary) that more equitably reflect real definitions. Good day. E Pluribus Anthony 14:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:61.59.83.208, I think your using large newspapers' coverage zones or international organizations membership as examples of how one ought to delimit Asia fails to prove anything whatsoever. The European and African Unions cannot define the extent of their nominal continents simply by outlining the combined territory of their current member states.

I still dislike the insistence that there is somehow something "vague" over the name or location or extent of the continents ("It is sometimes unclear what Asia precisely consists of"). There is no confusion - Arabia, Anatolia and Sinai are no less "Asian" than Korea, Kamchatka or Malaya. If someone feels that it is a bad thing that the continents' names are all from either Greek, Latin or Italian, then that is merely a personal opinion; but it doesn't really change where or what Asia is (just look it up).

I, like fellow geography editor E.P.Anthony, intend to rectify some more on the intro later on, and also to remove/shorten those parts that just repeat the contents of a previous sentence. I see no reason why certain bodies of water west of Asia should be explicitly mentioned; obviously the coastline defines the outline except along the two mountain ranges, the river and the isthmus already mentioned. There is no mention of the Bering strait or the Wallace line in the article.

Also, I do wish you would start signing and dating your postings, even if you prefer to remain just a number. //Big Adamsky 17:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem isn't the type of name. The problem is that Asia's definition is mostly about what it's not--it's not Europe. This is how we arrive at the terms near east, middle east, and far east--all extremely Eurocentric and POV. Since wikipedia isn't a democracy, I don't think it matters who's against me as long as I'm on the side of reason.

BTW, you also setup a straw man argument. I didn't only list political organizations. Most prominent are the media listings, whose job is to DESCRIBE, not to define the world. So those are legitimately real world uses. Dictionaries are supposed to get their definitions from how people use the words (have you ever opened something like OED? it has tons and tons of citations), so a dictionary can be wrong if you have a reputable example of how it is used differently.

I believe the current edition is accurate and, yet, reflects the ambiguity of the definitions: it is descriptive and presciptive. Also note it is an introduction and should, thus, be breif: additional elaboration, if needed, can occur in a dedicated section later in the article ... Thanks for the input. E Pluribus Anthony 20:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point anonymous. Many citations will tell you that there are different definitions for Asia. Only presenting one point of view violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy by only presenting one point of view where multiple credible sources exist.--^DarkTea 12:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Classic/traditional Turkey

I want to point out that conservative arguments that say the concept of Asia is one that is derived from antiquity are really weak. Asia Minor used to be basically Turkey. But Turkey today is often considered a part of Europe (joining the EU)!

To have a more global perspective is surely one of the goals of an internet encyclopedia, especially one which can be read by anyone who understands the language all over the world. Thus we can very easily clarify what traditional means and what classical means. Classical Greek/Classical Roman/traditionally in the West are all very easy clarifications. If it's so easy, why not use it? It helps to clear up any confusion (classical can mean Greek/Roman/old Europe).

Ok, can we please stop using Antiquity, which itself is just a definitional page that disambuiates between several definitions? It is clearly classical GREECE in this case. No need to muck things up for the reader.

Also, please say WEST. It is traditionally defined this way in the WEST. We make remarks like this further down in the article--why do we not extend the same courtesy to the intro?

For reasons alluded to above, these are POV assertions that fly in the face of other sources: by many definitions, Turkey (once known largely as Asia Minor) is both a part of Asia and Europe, in a physiogeographic and geopolitical sense (et al.). In addition, Asia also has etymological roots from the Near East or Middle East, so Antiquity is accurate and Classical Greek less so. And as for West, one could argue that we should remove notations of West further in the article; in fact, reiterating these viewpoints in the article or ones contrary to it implies an Eastern bias. To that end, I will thoroughly peruse and edit the article to rectify perceived POV. E Pluribus Anthony 16:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Um... 1) antiquity almost never means Near East or Middle East so if that's the case, then the language is just wrong. 2) How is that an Eastern bias to point out that this idea has its origins in the West? That makes no sense. It's bias NOT to recognize that in places like Russia and Japan, people don't agree with this scheme of naming continents. Not recognizing that other views exist or that a particular view belongs to a particular group (and hence is not universal) is POV. I'll hold out that you still have some legitimate reasoning out there somewhere, but it hasn't been explained yet.

The current edition reads fine. I will respond, only to clarify: (1) the prior edition indicated the more general Antiquity (which embraces more than Greece and Rome) and your later edit (erroneously) indicated only ancient Greece. (2) East-vs.-West usage isn't inherently POV, but only including one or the other is; this occurs later in the article, for both East and West. All such mentions should be balanced with a NPOV. No accusation intended, but I'll soon make edits that better balance the numerous views and mentions later in the article.

As well: 'please sign your comments! Your edits won't be treated with as much skepticism if we can put a name to them. :) Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 20:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad Analogy

"Continents are concepts of human geography (i.e., landscapes and landforms as interpreted by humans), similar to what "supercontinents" and other landmasses are to physical geography, and definitions may vary"

Trying to explain a concept with an even more unlikely understood concept is asking for trouble. If the reader doesnt' know what human geography is, they might not know what a supercontinent is either. Being direct and just saying it's not a concept out of geology or physical geography is much clearer.-314

Hey: that seems fine! That text predates my edits to it, so I applaud you for clarifying it.  :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I thank you for recognizing my work. I hope we can find other points of consensus.