Jump to content

Talk:Asia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

A suggestion:

In the info box on the top right of the article it says:

Population: ####

Density: ###

Shouldn't it be like the Europe article where it says "Pop. Density", not just "Density" ?

Sorry if I'm being anal =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obhave (talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I've made the change. Other editors should feel free to revert me if I've acted inappropriately; however, I do feel that "Pop. density" is more explicit. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Taken care of for the new infobox. blurredpeace ☮ 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maps for continents - proposal

Currently a number of different styles of maps are used for continents (and for the poles), for example:

I'd like to try and standardise maps across the following articles: Americas, North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania (and also, ideally, Arctic and Antarctica. My preference is for the orthographic projection currently used at Europe because:

  • It's an SVG instead of a PNG, so can be scaled easily.
  • New maps can be relatively created from existing SVGs (i.e. Europe's map - or the other SVG maps visible at File:Europe (orthographic projection).svg - can be recycled).
  • As an orthographic projection it allows the maps to be centred on the relevant continent or territory.

Assuming there's consensus for this, I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop (unless, of course, anyone volunteers beforehand!) However, before doing that I do want to check that there is consensus for this at each article affected. Additionally, I'm posting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to increase the exposure - I'd rather find out if this is a stupid idea before I start requesting new images ;-)

Personally I think it would be good if the Arctic and Antarctic maps were consistent with the continent maps. I realise that the poles may have different requirements, however.

This proposal is quite a radical proposal, affecting many articles, and deals with areas I don't normally edit in. I'm therefore prepared to be slapped down if I'm stepping on toes!

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Done! Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The population is 4 Billions

Source: [24] - Jørgen88 (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed on "Etymology" section of Asia article the following sentence: "It was presumed in antiquity to end with India, the Macedonian king Alexander the Great believing he would reach reach the "end of the world" upon his arrival in the East". The mistake is that there is a link on the word "Macedonian" which leads to "Republic of Macedonia" article, which has no connection with the Ancient Macedonians and Alexander the Great. That link should lead to the "Ancient Macedonia" article instead. This mistake is misleading for someone that doesnt know the region history. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratos V (talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Offending maps

A user Satt 2 seem to have taken offence at the longstanding maps here and has deleted them twice. (See this diff with the ES of "just because this biased map survived on this abandoned article for some time and is now considered "longstanding", does not mean it is right. Stop pushin your POV based on handpicked sources.")

I have rollbacked the deletions, but am inviting the editor to discuss and seek consensus before taking further action. Manning (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

S/he's doing the same on Europe and has even run to Arbcom to protest his case. --Snowded TALK 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
well, you see, Europe and Asia border each other so if one alters the borders of one of them, the other has to be altered. It is not my choice to work on both articles myself.--Satt 2 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I find this whole dispute to be very pointless and silly, and a complete waste of time. In essence, no map, chart, book, newspaper, magazine, etc. could ever have a map of Asia without being different than another map of Asia, and therefore by your logic, they all should be removed or added onto with differing maps of various borders. Utter nonsense- I cannot support this removal of the map from the Infobox. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 23:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
It appears like you dont have a big of an argument if you have a need to copy and paste your ideas from page to page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satt 2 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
More voices are needed to chime in on this dispute, and I'm adding my voice to it. I am against your edits as I described on the discussion page in Europe. I read these talk pages from time to time, and your logic is faulty as I said, and a member of ArbCom said. It is called consensus; the more voices, the better. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 23:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • just because this biased map survived on this abandoned article for some time and is now considered "longstanding" - this map was only created four months ago... you, uh, might also want to check the article's history before dismissing it as "abandoned"... If you have a genuine complaint about the map, there are sensible ways to deal with it - editing the map, for example. Removing it wholesale, leaving no map in the infobox, is not a sensible option. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've commented at Europe. Suffice to say that I concur with Monsieurdl -- changes aren't required, and salient alternatives haven't been presented. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

asia

is a big place Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.252.32 (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding this would be consistent with other world region pages on Wikipedia. 166.205.135.144 (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC) anna

Unfortunate Omission or Bias in Beliefs Section

Asia is the home and origin of two of the most populous, culturally fertile and historically influential religions of the world, both of which have a long and copious literary history. To wit: Hinduism and Buddhism.

Yet neither receive so much as a full paragraph of attention in the section on Beliefs.

I am not prepared to undertake the correction at this time. But SOMEBODY must at some point.

I'm not sure what the term "Abrahamic" religion is supposed to signify, or why that subject, whatever it is, receives particular attention. Neither do I understand why Armenia and Georgia are mentioned in this context at all. Are they particularly important or relevant to Asian religious history or Asian religious life today?

If there is a need to cover Christianity, or Islam or Judaism in a piece on Asia, better to discuss them outright, one at a time -- especially as their respective spheres of influence are historically, geographically and culturally quite distinct.

Someone needs to cover such subjects as the Vedas, Taoism and the various branches, schools and history of both Hinduism and Buddhism -- at least to the extent of at least introducing the subjects.

I also advise that the population distribution between at least the most populous religious groups in Asia be at least superficially covered.

Another subject that needs attention is the growth and spread of atheism, particularly in China. It is, at this point in history, an enormously influential point of view.

Nobodyreallyspecial (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting discovery

New data has shown the genetic origins of Asian populations in South East and East asian.

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/atlantis.html http://pl.net/~keithr/rfc2001113OriginsEden.html http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/paul-rod...d-spread-taiwan http://www.genomeweb.com/arrays/hugo-pan-a...+%C3%9Cberfeed) http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_the...s-study_1322647 http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci-te..._100287805.html http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/dat...00912120027.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.15.143 (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus?

I understand that defining "Asia" is already pretty silly, but why is Cyprus included? What was the criteria used to include this island nation that is a member of the EU as a part of "Asia" (whatever that really is)? And who gets to create the criteria? Yeah but it has alot of people like 4 hundren milloin people!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.102.195 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Asia's Named After.............

Asia the continent is named after A greek God's wife.Greek God-Titan Prometheus.Asia was again named after his wife. AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.75.102 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of the earth´s continents

Apparently, on the economic section of the article, North America is defined as another continent, separeted from the rest of america. It should be changed to America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.146.21 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

North America is a separate continent, according to the English speaking world, and this is an English Wikipedia page. If you want to add the two continents together, then feel free to make your change on the appropriate Spanish Wikipedia page. 217.171.129.70 (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically Asia, Europe, and Africa are one continent, but they're usually considered as separate. Eurasia or Afro-Eurasia are not exactly common definitions of continents. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

population densities incorrect

It's clear that the population density of russia is incorrect. If im not mistaken the formula is population/area(km^2). This would give Russia a population density of 8.32. Not 26, as it is labled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.128.16 (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Asian Highway Network

In what section might a link to the Asian Highway Network be put? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

History of economys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)

Get it right.

Again.

Links currently given (if working) have on basis. When searching through the links only statements are made - all of which sound as if they were taken from the wikipedia source from before (which was also incorrect)

I don't see what's so difficult. Wikipedia should be a source of true information. Not bullshit. Continout bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.225.51 (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong info...

"Japan has the largest economy on the continent and the second largest in the world. In purchasing power parity terms, however, China has the largest economy in Asia and the second largest in the world." Japan and China can't be the second largest economy i nthe world at the same time.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.96.1.32 (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes they can, two different criterions being used here. One is Nominal GDP, the other is based on PPP. - vohne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vohne (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Tone

Some parts of this article strikes me of pan-asianism. It goes beyond a simple factual explanation.94.193.61.168 (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Australia in PPP table

Under section 6, Australia is listed in the PPP table. Australia is not part of Asia therefore it has no right being in that table. I can't remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vohne (talk • contribs) 18:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Black Seas should be Black Sea

In the 1st paragraph. How many Black Seas are there? Mpau0516 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Mpau0516

Wrong Name

In the Economy section, the name of the city in India is given as Bombay, which is incorrect The city is known by the name of Mumbai. Somebody please correct the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragvansh (talk • contribs) 06:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Done! Rikyu (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mpau0516, 10 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the 2nd paragraph, Black Seas should be Black Sea. There is only one of them. Mpau0516 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Mpau0516

Mpau0516 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it is correct to use "seas", since it is referred to the Caspian Sea and to the Black Sea. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Esegrave, 17 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the introduction a couple lines down there is a link to the "World" page that reads "worldfolloweed". I think it is supposed to be "world followed" with "world" being a link to the "World" page. A google search of the word worldfolloweed only comes up with the link to this page in Wikipedia, so I'm sure it isn't a fancy word meaning world.

Esegrave (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thank you.--Forty twothe answer? 20:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus ?

Why is considered Cyprus an asian country since it's a member of the European Union ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaZ0r (talk • contribs) 18:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Which countries in asia are becoming richer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.215.107 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

IN ASIA, WHICH COUNTRIES ARE BECOMING RICHER? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.215.107 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexander the greats map.

Errm may I ask why a largely conceived of to be European empire is listed on a map of Asian history? I ask it be removed and replaced with something more decent Asian orientated like the Achaemenid empire. Stinks of a colonial attitude. Especially when a sentence in the Europe wiki states.

"Europe, in particular Ancient Greece, is the birthplace of Western culture"

Can you understand my frustration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersymbiotic (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove

Can someone please remove informqtion regarding China as having the largest and richest economy for much of it long history. According to another Wikipedia article this was not the case as India and the British Empire also had the largest economies at certain points in time. This is even supported by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India.

It says and i quote 'For the next 1500 years, India produced its classical civilizations such as the Rashtrakutas, Hoysalas and Western Gangas. During this period India is estimated to have had the largest economy of the ancient and medieval world between the 1st and 15th centuries AD, controlling between one third and one fourth of the world's wealth up to the time of the Marathas, from whence it rapidly declined during European rule.'- This can be found as part of the introductory paragrapgh.

In fact i would like to point out that none of the references actually support this Chinese view. They simply say it had the largest economy just before the start of European colonization. This is true but it is also true that India had for the most part the largest economy in the world for much of the world's long history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.82.241 (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

DEMONYM

Spell it WITH me now, brothers and sisters: DEMONYM, not deNmonym as the article title says.

what's with the "brothers and sisters"? 173.183.79.81 (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.44.58.122, 17 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the Economy section, regarding this statement: "In 1995, Japan's economy nearly equaled that of the USA to tie as the largest economy in the world for a day, after the Japanese currency reached a record high of 79 yen/dollar". First, it really should have a citation. I've never heard that fact, and a very quick search didn't find any substantiated source for this interesting tidbit. Second, even if true, it's worded rather awkwardly, with the "nearly equaled...to tie" phrasing.

24.44.58.122 (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, after a bit of searching I did find this (see the first graph) which agrees with the statement. I fixed the wording for now. I will see what others think about removing the statement or finding a better source. Stickee (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


What is Azerbhaijahn?

The first sentence refers to Asia as the largest "Azerbhaijahn" but when one Googles that word, one gets only this particular sentence in Wikipedia and nothing else except references to the country Azerbaijan [various spellings]. Please either define this word, or change it. I looked up Asia when I saw a discussion about "is the Middle East Asia?" -- Asia is partly in the eye of the geo-political beholder, I guess, but if it is the world's largest "Azerbhaijahn" the reader should know what that means. Geoscriptor (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Geoscriptor I removed it, it looks like spam to me! Cyberdrakon (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits needed

Can someone please remove informqtion regarding China as having the largest and richest economy for much of it long history. According to another Wikipedia article this was not the case as India and the British Empire also had the largest economies at certain points in time. This is even supported by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India.

It says and i quote 'For the next 1500 years, India produced its classical civilizations such as the Rashtrakutas, Hoysalas and Western Gangas. During this period India is estimated to have had the largest economy of the ancient and medieval world between the 1st and 15th centuries AD, controlling between one third and one fourth of the world's wealth up to the time of the Marathas, from whence it rapidly declined during European rule.'- This can be found as part of the introductory paragrapgh.

In fact i would like to point out that none of the references actually support this Chinese view. They simply say it had the largest economy just before the start of European colonization. This is true but it is also true that India had for the most part the largest economy in the world for much of the world's long history.86.150.246.215 (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia as a source. You have to find another reliable source to support your statements. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 18:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, for this case, the article used as a source's sources should be enough. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Iran: Southern or Western Asia?

This multi-color map,

classifies Iran (according to the UN?) in Southern Asia but the table following it on the article lists Iran in Western Asia. I suppose there should have been a "Southwestern" Asia as well...

Anyhow, it'd be nice if the map and the table were made consistent. hey !!! i nkow you want me!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.57.229 (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Georgia as a transcontinental country

The same problem occurs here as in Europe concerning the status of Georgia as a transcontinental country. It is pointless giving lists of sources to prove Georgia is in Europe; or equally well in Asia. The situation has been solved at Europe and the same solution should be adopted here for consistency. The editor who made the changes seems to edit many articles concerned with Georgia, including Europe. If necessary more information on transcontinental countries and their status can be included elsewhere in this article (outside footnotes), but statements like "most sources place Georgia in Europe" cannot in fact be sourced The CIA fact book differs from the BBC, etc. But this topic has already been discussed many times, certainly on the Talk:Europe and its archives. Mathsci (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The same user has restored their changes, without any comment here. I have reverted their changes. They are not following WP:BRD by failing to note these points here, which have been discussed at length many, many times on Talk:Europe and its archives. Mathsci (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
My descriptions in the edit summary are clear enough. I am not going to come out here and argue obvious things just to waste everyone's time. My note was harmless and it was simply stating a reality. I know that CIA factbook and other sources differ, but that is the reason why Georgia is in this chart in the first place, is not it? I did not remove it, I merely added that the majority of sources I have place it in Europe.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It is ambiguous, so I have adopted the compromise from Europe, namely that is often considered a Transcontinental country, that most sources describe it as being in Europe, but that a few named sources regard it, for particular reasons, as being in Western Asia. I hope that using that formulation is now satsfactory. There is an ambiguity and that has been quite well worked out in the European footnote (I truncated the end, but that could be reinserted). Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am definitely in favor of standardizing the footnotes across pages because previously this Asia page has stood by itself, as if none of the changes made outside had to be adopted for the sake of consistency. Now I think it is more fair and will not confuse people when they go from page to page. For that reason, I will actually try to include this footnote in other regional classifications which are also known to cause confusion.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Good and thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I reverted. This is not a source war. There is not going to be a stacking of sources against each other. Do any of those sources that consider it is in Europe say that it is not in Asia? If not the comparison is completely pointless. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You are making a ridiculous demand chimpinkdavis. Do any of the sources that place countries in N. America say that they are not in south America? What does this have to do with anything? I disagree that we are engaged in a "source war" because we did not remove Georgia from the Asia/Western Asia list based on one set of sources, we merely acknowledged what is more common based on the sources we have. The fact that the country remained on the Asia list is enough of a prove that the differing sources have been considered as much as the European placement ones. If we had it all removed, then that would be a problem. --ComtesseDeMingrélie 14:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, your edit was unhelpful. This problem has occurred multiple times in the article Europe, where a very careful solution has been worked out in a footnote. That footnote has been copied here verbatim. After the mention of transcontinental country, it added the same two sets of carefully prepared sources which have been in place for a number of years. To use the words "source war" is thus completely inaccurate. There have been nationalistic editors of Europe who have caused disruption over the status of transcontinental country, but that is fortunately not what is happening here. The ambiguity has been spelt out without making any non--neutral claims.

I do have two questions about Turkey and Georgia. There are no population figures for the Asian part of Turkey, or any part of Turkey at all; and the population figures for Georgia are for the whole of Georgia, not for the Asian part of Georgia (in Europe the figures are only for the part of Georgia deemed to lie in Europe). Mathsci (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not have Europe on watchlist, so I have no idea what's on that article. The footnote has absolutely no purpose but to try and push a view that Georgia is solely European and the sources given do not substantiate this. The whole reason Georgia is on both lists is that it is transcontinental, ie it is in both Asia and Europe. Showing a bunch of sources to the reader that say it is in Europe does absolutely nothing. Yes it is, we all agree on that. The point of the excessive footnote is what exactly? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me repeat myself again, nothing in what we did suggests that we are pushing that Georgia is "solely European." Mathsci already remarked that this is the reason why the very first sentence of the footnote mentions that Georgia is often considered a transcontinental country. The rest of the sources simply give readers an idea of how frequent is one definition among the respectable sources, and how frequent another. I see absolutely no harm in that. --ComtesseDeMingrélie 15:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The basic question of why still isn't answered. What does it mean for these organisations to call Georgia European? We note it is transcontinental, I'm fine with that. Frequency of sources does not matter in this. Of course a European organisation such as the Council of Europe will include Georgia. Anyway, many of these, that divide into different regions, have to decide whether to place Georgia in Europe or Asia. We do not face that problem.
The Europe note by the way, is not neutral and does push a position. "It is placed in Europe by numerous European and international organizations,[176] but it is sometimes considered Western Asian[177] because of its peripheral location in the south-easternmost part of the continent." Basically it's saying that it should be Europe, but because its on the edge of Europe it is sometimes Asian. A properly neutral note would be a some sources call it European, some sources call it Asian, with no qualifiers or explanations. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I have a lot of experience with Europe. This problem is recurrent, which is one reason why that footnote is in place. The wording states that often Georgia is regarded as a transcontinental country. It lists sources for both Europe (e.g, BBC) and Western Asia (e.g. CIA Fact Book), in a neutral way. That has stopped problems on Europe. On Europe as well, it was necessary to add a lengthy section on the borders of Europe in the definition section, using WP:RS. For the most part, that has prevented problems. Those problems arise when editors want to suppress the ambiguity. In addition the labelling of the political map of Europe acquired a colour code to indicate transcontinental countries and special cases such as Malta, Cyprus, Armenia and Greenland. The solution there seems stable and that should also be true here. I don't suggest altering the political map on Asia (for Euope, I did it manually and it took a long time, because of disruption by the sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user). Mathsci (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The footnote is pointless and too long. If necessary, all that's needed is that some sources place it in Europe, and some place it in Asia. A complete list of everything we can find doesn't help. Additionally, including sources such as the Council of Europe is ridiculous, as they're not exactly picking between Europe and Asia. Additionally, I see ComtesseDeMingrelie has decided to edit war this on to Western Asia, but not Eastern Europe, for some strange unfathomable reason. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This is only a footnote. In Europe, the transcontinental countries are discussed in detail in the main text at various points. That doesn't seem to be the case here, so perhaps the better way to go is to spell that out in the main article. (I am surprised that as an article Europe is twice the length of Asia.) I am absolutely for the maximum amount of ambiguity and neutrality in this case. That is best achieved by adding to the main text, not tweaking footnotes. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm absolutely fine with an explanation of transcontinental countries, be it footnote or text, as long as it is WP:NPOV. The current footnote with its attempt to overload with references to Europe and qualify ones that mention Asia is not, however, NPOV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is to look at Europe as a guide. At present there is no explanation whatsoever of transcontinental country in the main text of Asia (ho, hum) nor where that ambiguity came from (the cartographer von Strahlenberg, amongst others). That is a problem with how this article has been written. I think you should add something to the main text, if you have time. Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Why the Asia article needs a section on transcontinental countries eludes me, but a small explanation under a list of countries is fine, perhaps with mains to relevant articles. In fact, I'll try and do this later, I assume it would mention Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey, and perhaps even Egypt. The ambiguity is because continents don't follow the political borders of countries, which frankly, is fine. This insistence that a country is one or the other is pointless. As for taking Europe as a guideline, I don't think so, it has a separate footnotes for each transcontinental country, but only Georgia has been singled out to be loaded with references asserting its European-ness. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You are misreading me. I am only suggesting extra content in the main article to state definitively that certain countries are usually regarded as transcontinental. The article on Europe has no separate section on transcontinental countries. It does have a separate section on the definition, which is carefully sourced. There was one source in particular which was particularly useful, Lewis & Wigen (1997). The myth of continents: a critique of metageography. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20743-2. Once something is definitively in the main text with sources about transcontinental countries, that will solve any resting doubts you might have about WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV. I have spent several days over the years helping sort this out on Europe and am one of the main watchers there.[25] Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

- I have reverted the article to the last stable version to allow unbiased discussion to continue. I agree with Chipmunkdavis that the version in place contained an unnecessarily long list of sources, and read more like a talk page comment by someone trying to push the view that Georgia is in Europe than an article footnote. Since numerous sources list it as being partly in Asia (including extra detail on the CIA page stating that "a sliver of land north of the Caucasus extending into Europe"), there is no reason to treat it any different from the other transcontinental countries in Asia. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It is the established footnote from Europe. In principle I don't have any particular preference between the long footnote and the present one. However, if there is edit warring by other editors who edit articles connected with Georgia, don't say that I did not warn you and that I didn't find an appropriate compromise solution. In Africa, as here. there is no explanation of transcontinental countries. Egypt is the example between Africa and Asia. It is described as such in Africa, but not in this article. Which article is correct: Africa or Asia? Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
And what I predicted has just happened. Mathsci (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Something being used in Europe is not a reason for it to be used here. Nothing in the main test will fix my NPOV concerns with that footnote, but as I see a footnote is wanted, I'll fix it as I alter the text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, it looks a lot better now. The only issue I personally have truck with now is that Egypt is not listed amongst the main body of countries. The Sinai peninsula is indisputably part of Asia, hence giving Egypt the same logical status as all the other transcontinental countries. The footnote at present justifies Egypt's omission due to its not being in the "UN geosphere". But as far as I can see from the image on the page, Russia is not in the "UN geosphere" for Asia either. So either both should be included or neither. Unless there's some other reason that I'm missing...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dammit that's annoying. You're right. It could be just converted to a list of countries and territories, and thus include Russia, Egypt, Christmas Island, and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Alternatively, the current section Russia is in could be moved into the bottom and be noted as "Other areas" or something similar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There are six transcontinental countries: Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Egypt. There are two countries, Armenia and Cyprus, which are not transcontinental (they lie in Asia) but, for historical and cultural reasons, are often considered to be part of Europe. I wonder if you could correct this? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well...can't correct anything now. You're right about Armenia though, that was a mistake on my part. The Cyprus footnote link is broken, have to fix that too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

While we're discussing countries, is there any objections to removing that large table of past names? I don't see any value in them on this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the current wording. Making it appear as if placing Georgia in Asia is as common as placing it in Europe is deceptive and it shows inherent bias of user Chipmunkdavis who from the beginning displayed a particular zeal for pushing his narrow point of view. There was nothing wrong with the previous note as long as it was sourced.To make this even worse, his version is the one on which the page got locked which I find puzzling at best.Moreover, I would not agree with uniting all countries under a single note because Kazakhstan is neither member of the CoE nor listed as European by the EU or any other sources provided.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 14:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not deceptive, it's a neutral not picking one over the other, not giving an opinion. My narrow point of view? As for Kazakhstan, it's not in the same footnote, so no problem. As for the page full protection, that wasn't me. I'm as surprised as anyone. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
@ComtesseDeMingrelie: See WP:Protection policy#Content disputes. This is termed as the wrong version. It's intended to be humorous, but I think you guys can get the picture from the first paragraph. If there is an agreement among editors, I will revert to the pre-edit war version by Yobot and you guys can discuss it from there.
As I stated in the edit summary, the protection is a week despite the current expiry. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 16:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this period could be used constructively for improving the article, or at least suggesting nd discussing improvementsa here. Chipmunkdavis has already improved the way of adding notes for the table so they can have their own footnotes (in line with Europe). I think changing the labels on the clickable main map and suggesting a caption to go with it could also be helpful, Also expanding the definition to talk about boundaries could also be helpful. I am more familiar with Europe and only watch Asia because occasionally there have been simultaneous problems on both. Periodically on Europe improvements happen precisely because of this kind of disruption. It is an odd phenomenon, but that is how it is: the article ends up being written more carefully with perhaps a better choice of sources, My feeling is that, although I'm not interested in editing, this period could be used to make real improvements to this part of the article. Chipmunkdavis has made a start and a lot more could be done. Wikipedia cannot resolve real life disputes or tensions concerning Georgia (or any other country) just by changing a footnote. Mathsci (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan Mathsci, make good out of the bad. Can you expand on the changes to the labels and the clickable map, not sure what exactly you want to change. Most of the edits you've made about the borders of Europe would no doubt probably apply here too (as Europe only borders Asia by land), and I've created a sourced summary of the history of Asia now present in the text, is there anything I may have missed? Would you agree on removing the table of former names? In addition, I think the subsections on economy can be worked into the main section (as they are short and have no sources), and the list of trade blocs can be removed and perhaps the most important couple mentioned in prose. For History, it should be expanded to provide a better summary, and maybe I could start a short biodiversity section. Most of these should be quick easy changes. Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Note for Elockid, as you have asked in the AN/I for the users to agree to let you take admin action, noting here that I don't mind what version it is locked at, as long as every user understands that it is still under discussion and not a fixed beginning. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Full protection removed per recent developments. Elockid (Talk) 03:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan

The map should be updated to reflect the independence of South Sudan, which is visible on this orthographic projection. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Political geography

A situation has sort of developed on its own due to the desire to have multiple articles on the different aspects of Asia. I am sure the original editors of these articles fully intended to have distinct subject material. Otherwise, why repeat the same article several times under different names? But, time and people being what they are, I find there is extensive repetition. Now, in many cases, the topics are repeated but the material is not. I don't mind that. If one article gives one etymology and another another, let's keep them both. It should be interesting to the reader. Real encyclopedias do not demand uniformity of their editors. What I am thinking about is material that is duplicated by cut and paste, such as the 50-country list with all the notes. We don't need to see that in three different articles. One is enough. Since it is a geographical list and we have an article on the geography of Asia, it should go there (where it also is already), unless it turns up also in the country list, in which case it goes there. So at my leisure, unless there is an issue here, I am going to remove it from here and put a "main" reference to the geography, and the same with other material that is blatently copied from one article to another. If there is an issue, be sure and let us know.Dave (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikitable sortable

Just before I deleted the geopolitical table from here someone made it sortable. This is a misapplication of sortability. The order is in fact a critical part of the table. It is divided into sections by title. As soon as you do one sort on any column the original order is irrecoverably gone and the table becomes nonsensical. To apply sortability, you would have to redesign the table. But, I like it the way it is. The table is now in Geography of Asia.Dave (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology section

Not bad, but you seem a bit uncertain as to what attribution to make. I presume that is because you are not a classicist. I can solidify that for you when I get chance - not too long as I am working on Asia. That will mean only a light edit. Meanwhile I am referencing this section from elsewhere so if it can stay here I would appreciate that..Dave (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed sentence

"However the Nile was usually considered the border until the 15th century, when the boundary was changed to the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Isthmus of Suez."

This section is pretty good. However, this statement is not quite accurate. The Nile was not the border. Opinions remained split. Now, anciently the Red Sea was the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. So, the Red Sea was the border over to India at first and then beyond. The Isthmus of Suez was described by Herodotus so it can't be any 15th century sort of thing. He described it as the Asian Shore and said Libya began there. I recognize fill-ins have to be in here but this one is not accurate.Dave (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Birthplace of the religions

"Asia has been the historical birthplace of all major world religions.[citation needed]"

I don't really know what to do with this. It is too broad as it stands. What's a religion? What is major? Do you mean historical religions or historical birthplace? By the time you finish defining those things the section is no longer an introduction. That "all" is not very objective. There's another one, too - origin. What is an origin of a religion? Some of them have founding figures - Christ, Buddha or Mohammed. Others, such as Hinduism, do not. Are we considering vanished religions? What about the ancient Roman religion? When did it begin? What is its origin?

A similar statement might be made of civilization. Where and when did it begin? Are you sure? What is it anyway?

My tendency is to avoid such generalization as over-generalization. By the time you have made your case you have written a book. And yet, if you say anything less it is wrong. Some things can't be reduced to a formula. I had a discussion with a lady once about the origin of wisdom. She was bound and determined to give a lecture to her church group on the topic and asked my advice about where to find books on it. Then we started getting into the definition of wisdom. I brought up the topic of Plato to no avail. In Plato, you know, some things can't be defined. But, she was giving a lecture, you know, just as we are writing an encyclopedia. I call to mind a certain movie character proclaiming that man must know his limitations. I don't think that got through.

So, I would not put any such facile statements in. In fact the origin of some religions is part of the doctrine. Did not God scatter all peoples from the Tower of Babel? Did not God eject Adam and Eve to the east of Eden? Obviously, all peoples, religions and civilizations must have come from Mesopotamia, which is in Asia. However if you are absolutely determined to presume to tell people where and when religion started you have to use sources. Here is another problem. Exactly what sources would you use? Do they belong to any of these religions? If so, how can we accept them as objective? By now you must be beginning to see what I mean. Encyclopedia editors must know their limitations.Dave (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The word Asia...

"The term "Asia" is originally a concept exclusively of Western civilization.[1] The peoples of ancient Asia (Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Persians, Arabs etc.) never conceived the idea of Asia, simply because they did not see themselves collectively. In their perspective, they were vastly varied civilizations, contrary to ancient European belief.[ref name="reid"]"

This is too general, not true in detail. The Greeks may well have got the word from an Asian place name, which kind of shoots down the idea that it is exclusively western. The Assyrian theory is a valid candidate but apart from that there is a Lydian theory also. They might be related. It might be an Assyrian name. No connection is proved but it is possible. But, there is a worse philosophic problem. Asia usually means "east" in usage and the eastern peoples did too regard themselves as eastern. They could see which way the sun rises and sets just like anyone else. Fine, they were vastly varied. Fine, Europeans did and do lump them all together. What has that got to do with the etymology? This is a section on the origin of the word. Now, no page number is given for Reid and he is not quoted. But, just as above, the concept cited is not true or relevant. So Reid is not a ref to any etymology.Dave (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Liddell & Scott ref

I applaud the use of L & S, a standard - no, THE standard - Greek dictionary. However, it does not state the origin of the ancient Greek word. To say that Asia originates from it presupposes Asia was always a native Greek word. Probably not. I will have to change some words on this to get the right implications.Dave (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The duplicate table and maps question

On the basis of the article Europe, I am surprised to see the removal of both the clickable map and the table of countries. These are very informative and I think there is a strong case for having them both in Asia and Geography of Asia, in this article perhaps not quite as they were displayed. The clickable map appears early on in Europe, where definitions and boundaries are discussed. So I would encourage the return of the table and the clickable map. I also would expect longer (summary) sections on both the geography and history of Asia, but that is another topic. Mathsci (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I was beginning to think these articles are totally dead in the water. I read your other comments about transcontinental and I pretty much agree with those. What transcontinental? Nobody much uses that concept.
Now, I continue to disagree with you about the table and the three maps. This is a large chunk of material; moreover, it is intended to be duplicated. I couldn't really accept it as it was. First, it was unfinished, with a lot of the formatting in but commented out because the editors could not get it working. In fact the template section (where the map is) drew an official tag of disapproval. The clickable map was unreadable and incorrectly formatted. I spent some time straightening that out. My only point here is that we really have to use the ones I got in Geography of Asia to fulfill the original intent and correct all the errors, many of which you yourself had pointed out. So, we don't want to use it the way it was before I started work on it. To modify that into something else by additional work, that is a different issue. If you have a different goal there perhaps you should consider a section in Asia based on it and done by you. In that way there would be no copy.
To copy what I will have (I'm not done), gee, I don't know. It is an awful big chunk of text. I thought the idea was to have different articles on different subjects. Right now the structure is so parallel that you could easily merge the two. In fact I was wondering why the geography was broken out into another article. Does anyone want to propose a merger? The problem I have with a merger is size - if we start expanding the sections you propose (as will probably happen) Asia will get get to be over 100 Kb, which I consider the absolute limit and only for gigantic topics. They usually put a tag on those suggesting they be broken up. I'm surprised at your surprise. Big articles almost always get broken up by offloading topics onto other articles. I suspect we got long way to go just to mention the topics covered by other encyclopedias. Now you want to put duplicated sections into a set of articles. I think a referece to another article is fine.
You might argue that the section in question should be in Asia not Geography of Asia. I considered that, but it is geography, you know. It would lengthen Asia by a lot, taking away space for other topics. The Asia article already has multiple offloads, so links to major material are not new there.
I can define a couple of questions out of this.
  1. Should such a large chunk of text be simply be cut and pasted?
  2. If not, which article should host it?
If we are speaking of modifying the old section into yet another section, I defer on that one. It could go in another direction, I do not deny. I however am not going to do it.
The forum is open. Please discuss and vote.

The vote

Why don't we do something different there per the discussion above? You seemed to like a sortable table. We could take out the sections of the table I moved to geography, take out the date column, put a note in that the figures come from sources given in geography of asia, and make the table sortable. That way it will sort by area or population or alphabetically by country and yet offer something different from the one in geography.Dave (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

"Some definitions exclude Turkey, the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia while only considering the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent to compose Asia,[11][12] especially in the United States after World War II.[13]"

This isn't true. One of these references is pay-per-view offered by the publisher so we can forget it. A second is not offering any preview but from what I can see they are only talking about western Asia. The one ref I can see is misinterpreted by the editor. There are a thousand agencies out there (large number) that deal with some locations in Asia. When they say Asia, they mean only that part where the jurisdiction of their agency extends. They do not mean that Asia is to be redefined to mean only their small chunk of it. I repeat, this is NOT a geographical redefinition but only a selection of some part in which the agency is involved. So, we can't present that as a serious definition of Asia; it is only a figure of speech. A bank that has an office only in Hong Kong might refer to its Asia office as Asia but that is not a geographical redefinition of Asia. Now the US reference cannot possibly mean that people in the US do not recognize the Middle East as Asian, which is what our statement asserts. I've never seen or heard of that in my entire life. The source appears to mean that Asians in the US only come from certain areas. None of this is developed in the article. We aren't interested here in the ethnic content of immigrants to the US from Asia or how they may be viewed. This is a geographical definition of Asia. So I'm going to shorten this to say what the one source I can see and don't have to pay for means, that agencies each have a functional definition of Asia that fits their activities. If you think that is wrong, may we have some development and some quotes on your apparent interpretation, that individual organizations redefine the general geographical definition of Asia?Dave (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, payperview sources are perfectly fine. One must WP:AGF that whoever provided the information is faithfully sourcing it unless conflicting information comes up. In this case however, it seems that the sentence is trying to say that in common usage asian referred to those from east asia or south asia, so doesn't constitute a definition for the area. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I do not think pay-per-view is fine. This is supposed to be a non-commercial encyclopedia. That means we do not buy and sell here. Pay-per-view is clearly selling, just as in Amazon and all the rest. The article can be referenced without selling it. That would have been fine. But, as you point out, the context was inappropriate anyway. If it had been appropriate I would have cited it without the link to pay-per-view. Pay-per-view is clearly sales on WP,especially given a choice of citations. We do not sell on WP, although in fact much sales gets done inadvertently. The public can easily find the pay sites with an Internet search. It is WP policy not to advertise openly for any sales agent. WP does not yet do commercials overtly. That is not to say it is not inadvertently commercial or editors do not make blatent use of the loopholes.Dave (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It's just a reference. References don't even have to be online. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, right. Most references are not online. The reference has to be appropriate to the topic referenced and has to be encyclopedic in quality. Of course WP advertises itself and collects donation money under the banner of being non-commercial. The battle therefore goes forward over what is commercialism and what not. Of course WP "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" might as well have put a big target on its forehead with a sign that says "shoot me with commercials." No one likes hard sales material, which is what we would get by the ton if the rule were not there. Free publicity! Will wonders never cease? Why, you could sell or plug anything on here. Unless we make a move to stop them that is exactly what they will do. People have to decide what they want. No one likes TV commercials. But, some people have to have commercials. The cat feels sorry for the poor mouse he is at this very moment forced to swallow. There goes the tail. Naturally the line is sometimes hard to draw. Now, if a company puts up a sign, "pay per view", tells you the price, advertises the product, and lets you buy it online, that is commercialism. I can't see there is any other way to see it. What kind of WP do YOU want? I used to put up the Amazon site when I first started. Those were all taken off. The site I removed is not one whit different from that; in fact, Amazon, like Google, now lets you preview some books and Google sites are frequent, and Google sells books. I don't use them but others do. I would say, if you really want a non-commercial WP you are going to have to fight for it along with the rest of us, as the commercialists are editors also and they gang up on anti-commercialists to get their product sold. Is that YOU? If not, fight, don't argue with me!Dave (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The doubtful doubt

"However, this etymology is considered doubtful, because it does not explain how the term "Asia" first came to be associated with Anatolia, which is west of the Semitic-speaking areas, unless they refer to the viewpoint of a Phoenician sailor sailing through the straits between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea."

You mean, you consider it doubtful? You're neglecting the Assyrian merchants and trading communities in Anatolia, which might even have preceded the Hittites. For that matter none of the explanations explain how Asia got to be associated with all Anatolia. There are just various theories needing further substantiation. I don't see any reason to select the Assyrian theory as less credible. Your theory, which is that Phoenician sailors used the term, is even worse. Phoenicians spoke Phoenician, not Assyrian.Dave (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The blob, the blob - argh, a great blob of Asians - run

"Ancient and medieval European maps depict the Asian continent as a "huge amorphous blob" extending eastward.[1] It was presumed in antiquity to end with India—the Greek king Alexander the Great believing he would reach the "end of the world" upon his arrival in the East.[1]"

The blob probably comes from modern representations of the earliest geographers, who put areas on their modern maps to represent statements such as "the east beyond there is unknown", or the north, or whatever. The geographers of the Roman Empire did not use blobs, they used coordinates, which were very much a matter of competitive zeal. Each one was trying to scoop his predecessors. Strabo, Ptolemy (centuries after Alexander), they had much information about Asia east of India, or shall we say the East Indies, going all the way to the Pacific. I used to read the generalizations myself concerning how the Romans and Chinese were ignorant of each other. The only ignoramuses were the authors of such statements. I first started learning anything different looking at Ptolemy. Much to my surprise there were nations Ptolemy should not have known a thing about. The geographers certainly knew of Ceylon, China, Japan and the East Indies. Their coordinates only roughly resembled the way it is, but then they had a similar distorted view of North Europe and Africa below the north. The map-makers, expeditioners, caravaneers and merchants by land or sea certainly knew of the East Indies. How much the ordinary citizens of Rome knew is a good question, but then they did not visit libraries or make maps. The ordinary people were not literate. I suppose they taught themselves to read signs and decrees or just left it up to someone who could read. I think we vastly overwork Reid here.Dave (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the Asianic Continent?

I was watching an old episode of What's My Line with Miyoshi Umeki ([26]), who was born in Japan. One of the questions by Miss Francis at 3:40 is "Where you born on the Asianic Continent?" to which Miyoshi's answer is no. I guess its possible that she didn't understand the question but the host of the show would have corrected such an obvious mistake if Asianic would include Japan. I'm finding very little reference to the word "Asianic" online and am just wondering what it really means. Is it just the adjective form of Asia or does it have more meaning than that? After reading the article about continents I guess I can see how it wouldn't include Japan, but I feel that if you asked most people now if Japan is on the Asianic continent, they would say yes. -- Suso (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure the word used wasn't Asiatic instead or Asianic? Now we normally say Asian instead of Asiatic. By saying "Asiatic Continent", I take it they're excluding islands. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

False information about China's wealth and the British Empire

At no point of time in human history was China ever the wealthiest civilization. I think the sentence should be changed from "China was the largest and most advanced economy on earth for much of recorded history, until the British Empire (excluding India) overtook it in the mid 19th century." to "India was the most largest economy on earth for much of recorded history, until it was annexed by the British Empire in the 18th century". Economic historian, Angus Maddison proves empirically in his book, "The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective", that India was the largest economy from the 1st through to the 18th century and throughout most of recorded history. There is absolutely no proof to suggest that China was the largest economy (or even one of the largest economies) in the world. India's wealth finds mention in ancient Roman, Greek, Egyptian and Chinese literature. However there is no mention of China's wealth in any of the ancient texts, including China's! Please change this sentence. It brings down the credibility of Wikipedia. Thanks.

Jackiepurr (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"However there is no mention of China's wealth in any of the ancient texts, including China's!" Really? You know this how, exactly? You read all of the ancient texts, including China's? Rikyu (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree with the fact that India was the richest country in much of the recorded history however it is wrong to say "no mention of China's wealth in any of the ancient texts". It is fact that China's economy was 2nd or 3rd largest but no way it was 'World largest'!! MrAryadeva (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://conference.asria.org/2011/images/ASrIA_Impax_Report_web.pdf. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Economy of Asia section

Realhistorybuff (talk · contribs) disruption again

Guys, we need to have a serious discussion regarding the constant Chinese POV pushing in this section. China was never the wealthiest civilization at any point of time in history. The source I have used is from a reputed economic historian named Angus Maddison, who graduated from The University of Cambridge - one of the best universities in the world!

117.192.64.22 (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear IP, it appears that I've reverted your edit a bit prematurely, sorry for that. To be honest, I couldn't believe that such exact numbers for the GDP in the first to tenth centuries exist. I've now done some research and stand corrected. Maybe the link to the table which was compiled on the basis of Maddison's work and which I've just added to the article could help to avoid further misunderstandings. Best regards --Phileasson (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
However, the part on China, which you deleted, should also be mentioned in the article. It appears to be well sourced and does not contradict the statements made before. I hope you'll agree with me on that point. --Phileasson (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"AREA SOUTH OF THE AEGEAN"- A.S.i.A.

This encyclopedia entry is pretty dumb and ill informed about a very basic well documented topic. Although Wikipedia is useful sometimes, I'm starting to believe that the mentality or agenda for some of those who run it is one of true or purposeful ignorance.

It is very clear cut that the term "Asia" is the latinized translation of the Greek reference to Micro-asia, the smaller land mass that begins the entire continent of Asia as a whole continent when coming from the Aegean. This article even makes reference to this (three continent model)! Why are there so many contradictions on the entire Wikipedia website? (and on different versions[languages])

There is no uncertainty about the history, it is documented throughout almost every war or conquest that has occurred through recorded history. The fundamental information is just ignored or disregarded.

When ships whether Greek, Persian, Roman, Phoenician, etc. set sail, they were either navigated from or to the plotted path south of the Aegean toward land/port.

The etymology comes from a Greek word origin which is then flipped around when translated into to Latin. I would assume any linguist of moderate training would know this.

All the detractors of Hellenic civilization need to give up maligning what is already established historical fact. There will never be alternate explanations to replace written human history, disproving the impact of the legacy of Western Civilization as it has developed to date.

History cannot be revised and replaced with fantasy and those attempt to promote rhetoric and politics while rewriting the past will lose and look foolish in the eyes of anyone that is educated.

Asia, it's just obvious, it is on all the maps after all.

I just wanted read about some further details on the subject of Asia. I just get frustrated when I see this kind of stupid bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.23.125 (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Population Numbers

The estimated population of Asia at 3,879,000,000 seems low. Encarta 2009 estimated it at 4.05 billion and Wolfram estimates it at 4.33086 billion people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukemcurley (talk • contribs) 11:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Asia as a name

The Xia were the first dynasty of China before there was a China. The name has several meanings such as "Summer" or the glow from the rising and setting sun. An alternative name for the Xia was Hsia which means basically the same thing but apparently is closer to the meaning for Summer.

The Xia I realize as considered mythical or semi mythical and yet, so were the Shang for a long time and the Shang speak of the Xia preceding them.

There have been discoveries many believe prove the existence of the Xia but there's nothing concrete.

There is a theory that the name Xia wasn't a dynastic name, but the name loosely applied to all the kingdoms prior to the rise of the Shang and that it applied to all the peoples, the land and possibly a single administrative organization all the kingdoms agreed to support as a form of confederacy of sorts with the ruling Xia eventually seizing power but maybe not being linked to one specific tribe or kingdom beyond specific families of the ruling elite.

In Chinese, many words are spelled differently in regard to pronunctiation or dialect. In this regard, we know that Xia and Hsia are the same... so is it such a leap to ask if Hsia is the root origin of the word Asia since no one seems to know the origin for the word?

We know that West Europeans did in fact have contact with them as did many in the Middle East where trade with Asia might have resulted in them spelling the name as it sounded in their own language where peoples to the west of them all call the region Asia (or most do).

I don't have the links to back up what I am saying but about a year ago my interest was peaked when I was watching a television show about Asia where they presented the theory and I found several site confirming that Xia was an ancient name for Asia. Wish I could remember the keywords to rediscover those links but if any of you would like to improve the document, this could be the way to do it if no one knows the origin of the name Asia.

In this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continent_name_etymologies , we are told that Herodotus first used the word in around 440 BC long after the Xia had fallen from power but the name did survive. Ironically, it means the same thing in Greek as it does in Chinese and the origin for the name Xia precedes the Greek name by many centuries. Greeks trading with the east would have picked up the name for traders. It mentions the Hittites using the name Assuwa and the semitic Asu yet there is no mention of the most obvious possibility that traders and travelers traveling to Asia brought the name Xia / Hsia back with them pronouncing it with an accent. When you track the name back through history, you find many possibilities.

However, just because we call Nippon Japan doesn't mean the fact we imposed a western name upon Nippon is equally true of Asia as a whole.

Before you delete this, let your intellectual curiousity investigate this because the Xia / Hsia did exist long before Latin or Greek and it could simply be that the Greeks absorbed the name into their language much as we in the US have absorbed and changed many native words to Anglicized variations which are nevertheless derived from actual native linguistics rather than being a name we gave them. (Armorbeast (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC))

The most efficient bulk transport of the ancient ages was the waterway. Clearly, the most usable route from Europe to India was the Venetian route, which led passing Cyprus to Antiochia, Aleppo, using the Euphrates to Basra, and continuing in the Persian Gulf. We need to realize that for any ancient seafarer using this route, the very first gateway to the today Asia was the Orontes River, leading to Antioch, called that time the River Axius, today, Asi River. So for a simple cause, travelers must have called Asia all those countries lying behind the Asius estuary.--Swotch (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

it is not just Turkey and Russia that have some european parts

it is also Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirzakhanfil (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


Etymology section

"Etymology: Asia was originally a concept of Western civilization (Ref: TR Reid)"*

TR Reid, Confucius Lives Next Door: What living in the East teaches us about living in the west, Vintage 1999

please get this right. You can use Reid's book for postmodernist reconstruction of the "concept of Asia", but please keep it out of the etymological discussion. Reid isn't relevant to that. So please don't have the article wave its hands about how the etymology is "unknown". There is the one widely accepted etymology, Assuwa. Then there is an "alternative etymology", apparently supported by this Reid book, which at least one editor felt they needed to base this entire article on. This doesn't mean that "the etymology is unknown". This just means that no matter how established an etymology is, there will always be some less-than-notable "alternative view".

This article as it stands is far outside the acceptable bounds of WP:DUE, please keep in mind our core project guidelines regarding this sort of "alternative view" and editorializing waving-of-hands to make things look unknowable. --130.60.142.82 (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

About the major cities in Asia

Hello,

I am really surprised after seeing that Kathmandu, Dhaka and Chittagong, cities of Bangladesh and Nepal, are not mentioned in the list of major cities in Asia. Whereas cities like Kolkata, Shanghai, Manila are included. Dhaka, Kathmandu and Chittagong have polulation of 13 million, 16.7 million and 6 million respectively whereas Kolkata has a population of 5 million and Manila has a polulation of 1.5 million. I hope the authority will include Dhaka, Kathmandu and Chittagong in the list of major cities in Asia.

Regards, Saiful Islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.213.178.90 (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oceania

Now you take a dig at Oceania. Oceania has never been Asia? According to who? Australasia is a common and well-known term to describe both Australia, New Zealand and all the surrouding islands from as far north as Darwin, Australia to as south west as the Chatham Islands of New Zealand and other included smaller islands. Explain yourself first before I make the edit myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Georgia

I think it is time to remove Georgia (country) from this honorable list of Asian countries as majority of its population does not consider itself Asian and the International Community recognizes it as European.[2]

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference reid was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Majority of reputable sources place Georgia in Europe such as the European Union [1], the Council of Europe [2], British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [3], World Health Organization [4], World Tourism Organization [5], UNESCO [6], UNICEF [7], UNHCR [8],European Civil Aviation Conference [9], Euronews [10], BBC [11], NATO [12], Russian Foreign Ministry [13], the World Bank [14], Assembly of European Regions [15], International Air Transport Association [16],Oxford Reference Online, OSCE [17], ICRC [18], Salvation Army [19], International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [20],Council on Foreign Relations [21], United States European Command [22], Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary [23] and www.worldatlas.com.
The same is true of Cyprus. Justgravy (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Cyprus in Europe or Asia?

I see that in the Europe article it is mentioned just as much as in this one. I always thought of Cyprus as being the south-east corner of Europe i.e. that Europe runs from the UK to Cyprus but now I'm not sure? Justgravy (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Africa Most Ethnically/Culturally Diverse Continent, Not Asia

Please remove " In contrast to Europe, Asia is the largest and most culturally diverse of the continents in the seven-continent system.[9]" under the subheading "Ongoing definition", as this is incorrect.

Africa is the most diverse continent on Earth, not Asia as is stated in this article.

An elaborate 11 year study done by Harvard in 2003 confirms this: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553003/alesinassrn_fractionalization.pdf?sequence=2

This article is cited in this easy-to-read article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326136/Worlds-apart-Uganda-tops-list-ethnically-diverse-countries-Earth-South-Korea-comes-bottom.html

As you will find, Asia has many large countries with homogenous populations.

WCdan59 (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: You're right, and the source doesn't say what the sentence said. Rather than remove it, I've changed it to "Asia is larger and more culturally diverse than Europe", which is all that the source says. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Bronze Age

There's a typo: (form Latin Occidens 'setting') should be from — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom holroyd (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Most advanced economy

China had the most advanced economy thru recorded history is not true! It's a claim not supported by historians and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.2.242.157 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Slight tweak - somebody forgot a verb

In the next to last sentence of the second paragraph of the section "Etymology," there is the following: "Roman civilization Hellenized extensively." I would suggest rewriting it as, "Roman civilization was extensively Hellenized," assuming that's what the original writer meant. (Other people can argue about the placement of the adverb.)209.179.21.14 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Asia

The Russian population is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.109.64.58 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Political map

Why there is no political map of Asia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.216.92 (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a political map of Asia. Type in "Political map of asia" on google and select "Images" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC) AND THERE ARE ALSO LOTS OF ASIA MAPS ON GOOGLE.... BY CYRILLE:)CAJ

Buddhism Origin: Nepal

Lord Gautam Buddha was born in Lumbini,Nepal. He founded Buddhism from Nepal upto India. THUS, Buddhism was originated in Nepal but why in Page:Asia Section: Dharma and Taoism states that Buddhism originated in India. I Agree that Hinduism originated in India but Buddhism was originated in Lumbini,Nepal. EVidence: SEE Lumbini, Buddhism, Gautama Buddha.


I HOPE THAT changes will be made with true evidence. MY god bless Nepal. — Preceding signed comment added by Blackhu20 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC +1:00:

During that time, Nepal was part of India. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Confused dates

The section on 'Economy' makes the following statement, "India had the world's largest economy during 0 BCE and 1000 BCE." This is problemmatic for a number of reasons:- (1) there is no 0 BC / BCE; (2) it's unclear whether the statement refers to two different years, or the two end-points of a 1,000 year period; (3) if the latter, it's conventional to refer to time moving forwards (from an earlier point to a later point). 203.6.146.5 (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a year 0 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is the globe image on top right doesn't include Papua?

Western half of the island of Papua belongs to Indonesia, which, according to the image is part of Asia


West New Guinea is part of Indonesia, Asia and east New Guinea is it's own country (Papua New Guinea) which, for some odd reason was decided to be in the continent Oceania (Australia) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

New Guinea is on the same continental shelf as the mainland of Australia and is separated from the continental shelf of Asia by deep water trenches. Continental boundaries and country borders don't have to be anywhere near contiguous with each other. --Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyprus-Turkish war

you forget this war to list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.0.228 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No map

Why is there no good normal map of Asia in this article? That is a very serious omission. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Unrecognized regions

I notice that there is "Unrecognized regions" on the left of the article, including Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia. I added Taiwan to it but reverted by User:Uaat without any explanation. I am wondering which countries/region should be listed here, since Abkhanzia, North Cypus, South Ossetia are all recongnized by at least one UN member, they are technically not "Unrecognized regions" . But, all four, and Taiwan, are not recognized as a independent country by the UN and most of its members. So, i advice to change it into "regions with limited recognation" and add Taiwan to it, or just least Nagorno-Karabakh alone, which is the only "Unrecognized regions" in Asia. Jiangyu911 (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This was resolved. 81.152.92.207 (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request (26 Oct 2015)

The end of the 1st paragraph of Classical antiquity is rather awkwardly written. For example there is the sort-of sentence, "Roman civilization Hellenized extensively." The sentence is poorly constructed, and looks like it was either poorly written, incorrectly edited, or even inexplicably dropped in for some unknown reason, as it frankly doesn't belong there. I would recommend just deleting it. __209.179.55.119 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Done I'm certain this was meant to be "Roman civilization was hellenized extensively." but it serves little purpose here, so I removed it. -- ferret (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What is "Oceniato" ?!

My English sucks but I wondered when I saw the word, and I only found polish google results. They maybe mean "Ocenia"? But earlier the "oceans" are already mentioned and Ocenia starts afaik at the eastern end of Australia and includes New Zealand as the only country most people know and a rich country, other islands there are small with few and often poor population and tourism and selling domains (.to for the Kingdom of Tonga for example) is very important for these islands. Greetings and late but a good 2016 for everyone who reads this :D Kilon22 (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the Problems... space was missing, Oceania[]to the.... Kilon22 (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2016

Seventh paragraph under section "Nobel prizes", comma before "Kim" and "and" before "Horta" should be inserted:

Current: Arafat (Palestinian Territories) Kim (South Korea), Horta and Belo (Timor Leste).

Should be: Arafat (Palestinian Territories), Kim (South Korea), and Horta and Belo (Timor Leste).

Fubarsnafu (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV in "Ongoing definition" section

Is it just me, or does the section "Ongoing definition" contain some out-of-place and hateful statements?

"Asia is larger and more culturally diverse than Europe."

"For example, Sir Barry Cunliffe, the emeritus professor of European archeology at Oxford, argues that Europe has been geographically and culturally merely "the western excrescence of the continent of Asia."

I fail to see how statements like these are true and/or relevant to the topic of that section. Does calling Europe's culture diseased and uniform help in defining Asia?


There's nothing strange or derogatory about saying that in terms of physical geography (and climate) Europe is really a peninsula of the larger Eurasia/Asia. Also, "excrescence" has nothing to do wth the word "excrements" if that's what you're hung up on ("diseased"). And when it comes to Asia being sulturally more diverse than Europe, that's also plainly true, and has been demonstrated by many hstorians. The differences between let's say Arabia, Java, eastern China and Arctic Siberia are much more dramatic than those between even Spain, Ireland and Russia when it comes to culture, historical processes and religion.
So I don't think Cunliffe's statement sounds belittling or disparaging towards Europe, but when it comes to "culturally" it should be noted that he's concerned with the stone age and ancient times up to AD 1000, and that he is an archaeologist rather than a political historian. He is not speaking about the high middle ages, the renaissance or modern Europe, but about the ages before there was any widely known idea of Europe (north of the Alps) as the home of "western culture", Christian civilization or whatever. 83.251.170.27 (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015

Where is Georgia? why it is not in Asia. Also there is incorrectnes. Azerbaijan is also intercontintal country. Some part is located in Asia, and some part in Europe. So pls change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.114.33.101 (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

112.198.64.50 (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You haven't made an edit request, so there is nothing we can do. Altamel (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Europe-Asia boundary?

The boundary between Asia and Europe may be indistinct, but is there consensus that the Ural Mountains and the Ural River form a boundary? If so, then that would place Anatolia and Iran, etc. in Europe. Therefore, some southern boundary, such as the Caucasus Mountains is needed to keep those regions in Asia. This discussion of boundary should be more about geography and less about history, as are the other boundary discussions. User:HopsonRoad 21:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The boundaries are arbitrarily determined by consensus, but yes, almost ubiquitously the Ural Mountains and Ural River are included in the boundary. The southern boundary is generally considered to be the crest of the Caucasus, although Encyclopaedia Britannica places it further north, at the Kuma–Manych Depression. CMD (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Then Goergia should also be named as a country in Asia. Why it is not in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.114.33.101 (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your update, CMD. I feel that it would help the article to clarify that (with references, of course). Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 01:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Added a note on the Caucasus mountains. CMD (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Asia Continent Help

|title = Asia Continent Help [Asia Continent Help|www.facebook.com/Asia-Continent-1582005442094621]]


Amirhussaingreat (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Asaland

In the Aesir-Vanir War Asia or Asaland is mentioned: 'Snorri states that Odinn led a great army from Asia ("Asaland") to attack the people of "Vanaland". Asia may have been the homeland of all Indo-European tribes. The Scandinavian Aesir may correspond to the Indian Asuras and Asia may have derived her name from The Aesir-Asuras. 10Guillot (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please put the role of Pakistan and fast emerging best performing stock exchange of Pakistan in this article. The role of Pakistan in stabilising the whole of the world by protectng from and fighting against terrorism. Pakistani Noble laureates.

Please include the invaluable efforts of Pakistan in bringing world peace by fighting against terrorism and extremism and also the role of Pakistans stock exchange as the worlds best performing stock exchange. It is unfair not to mention the intellect and Noble laureates from Pakistan. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.91.132.95 (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2017

The Capital of Sri Lanka is Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. Moozanna (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Resources

According to this sight, Asia has no resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:C000:2C9B:8506:323E:CE95:F762 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Greco-Roman / Persian wars and empires

The article, including the History section, makes no mention of the Greek expansion, or the Roman and Byzantine expansion into West Asia, or the Persian empire's wars with the aforementioned three empires. Something which makes up a large portion of Asian documented history. Which is unusual since it does mention the Caliphate and Mongol expansions, and mentions the Mughals and Marathas. It also doesn't mention the Turkic Khaganate and Cuman-Kipchak Confederation which preceded the Mongols in controlling the vast Pontic-Caspian Steppe, Central Asia and upper East Asia. --DA1 (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2018

In Political Geography Section : Thailand Country is missing. Please include. Sash bkk (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Danski454 (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Asia

what is Land of Ests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.36.147.148 (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2018

The last paragraph of the Etymology > Bronze Age section cointains a sentence which reads 

            The ideas of Occidental (form Latin Occidens 'setting') and Oriental (from Latin Oriens for 'rising') are also European invention, synonymous with Western and Eastern.

and should read 

            The ideas of Occidental (from Latin Occidens 'setting') and Oriental (from Latin Oriens for 'rising') are also European invention, synonymous with Western and Eastern. Dcmfpaq (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 Not done The before and after sentences appear to be the same; no change is requested. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2018

It needs a closing parenthesis at the end of the introductory paragraph Aryehmann (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Has someone checked the population densities?

The population density for Russia is incorrect. It should be 8.3 given the numbers included in the table. This would also bring it into agreement with the global geography entry which lists a population density for Russia of 8.3. I haven't had a chance to check the other numbers, someone probably ought to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.108.153 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2018

Spring Temple Buddha in Lushan County, Henan, China was the world's tallest statue in the world before 31/10/2018. Now, it has been replaced by Statue Of Unity in Narmada District of Gujarat State in India. Currently Spring Temple Buddha in Lushan County, Henan, China is the world's second tallest statue. So, I request you to take concern about it.

Thank you D K Vasaiya (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed, but in the future, please make your requests indicate the precise change that you want made. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Egypt

Egypt is not in asia remove it from the political geography Mohammad Rkein (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It is in Asia. It controls the Sinai Peninsula.Dimadick (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2019

The word "Christianity" may be removed from the following sentences:

  1. "Asia has exhibited economic dynamism (particularly East Asia) as well as robust population growth during the 20th century, but overall population growth has since fallen.[11] Asia was the birthplace of most of the world's mainstream religions including Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, as well as many other religions."
  2. Many of the world's major religions have their origins in Asia, including the five most practiced in the world (excluding irreligion), which are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Chinese folk religion (classified as Confucianism and Taoism), and Buddhism respectively.

As it contradicts with other Wikipedia pages listed below:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_in_Judaism Bhattacharya-7 (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: can you explain why it contradicts those articles? From what I can find, Christianity originated in the Middle East, which is indeed part of Asia, and it is still the most-practiced religion in the world. Highway 89 (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Asia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Asia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Asia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2020

Modern conflicts : The Ethnic conflict in Nagaland IDEAI (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

About Cyprus

Cyprus is not in Asia. It's in Europe and only Europe. Can someone please edit out this article because I haven't reached 10 edits yet. Barracuda41 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It is considered Asian in geography by the UN. See United Nations geoscheme for Asia2A0A:A543:F68:0:C124:CC93:DBD6:C9EF (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

African boundary

Why is there such a brouhaha over the delineation with Europe being a "construct" but the border with Africa is so uncritically accepted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.176.54 (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Historically, there have been a variety of different definitions of the border between Asia and Europe, whereas the border with Africa has remained relatively stable. CMD (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
There should be a statement that the border with Asia (correction: with Africa) is also a human construct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.176.54 (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The majority of the Africa-Asia border is through the ocean, which was not created by humans. CMD (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I find it funny that most of the people who insist (rather vehemently) that North and South America are one continent because they are connected by the isthmus of Panama see no problem with classifying Asia, Africa, and Europe as 3 continents. --Khajidha (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Are HSR god for india?

I think they are! travel between places in 2 hours instead of 6, isn't it good? SAMwikieditor2020 (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Asia and religion

There scriptures have been revealed by Allah linking Palestine and Israel
It is war, Cristianity, Islam
The three religions were revealed and blessed by allah in india
Jainism, hindu, Buddhism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.236.236 (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Surface Area

Not the same at all[1] is not a a valid and informative explanation (WP:REVEXP) for reverting a good faith edit, Chipmunkdavis. Are you going to explain why the United Nation's surface area estimate for Asia is wrong, or shall we start an WP:edit war? — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

UN defined regions are not the same as the usually accepted continents. They can be, as you noted, "wildly different". CMD (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Where's that reliably sourced "usually accepted" definition? The article uses the UN regions to describe what Asia is composed of.[1] — Guarapiranga ☎ 09:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
There is already a citation in the field you edited, and I suspect the broad definition will be the same in any English language atlas discussing Asia as a topic. Note the significant discrepancy between the section on this page that you cite, which includes Siberia, and the source you are interpreting to show the area of Asia, which does not. CMD (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Baked

I can’t parse the following sentence from the article.

"The burning of the palaces baked clay diurnal administrative records written in a Greek syllabic script called Linear B, deciphered by a number of interested parties, most notably by a young World War II cryptographer, Michael Ventris, subsequently assisted by the scholar, John Chadwick."

Is baked the verb, or is it an adjective in a nonsensical run-on? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2019-03-01 21:37 z

Baked is correct for items made of clay. See Modelling clay for example. "Ceramic clays are water-based substances made from clay minerals and other raw materials. They are baked at high temperatures in a process known as firing to create ceramics, such as terra cotta, earthenware, stoneware, and porcelain." Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Correct, but to answer the OP's precise question, baked in this sense is used as an adjective - it denotes that the clay tablets were baked at some prior time, and in the present they are 'baked clay tablets.' This usage of verbs-turned-adjectives is extremely prevalent in English and is not in the slightest bit a 'nonsensical runon.' Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Nope. This sentence is using "baked" as a verb. It is saying that "when the palaces burned, the clay tablets that held the administrative records were baked." The bits about the script really should be separated into another sentence and I don't know why "diurnal" is being used. --Khajidha (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Templates make it harder to catch vandalism"?

How is that, Chipmunkdavis?[1] If anything, they make it harder to vandalise:

  1. Vandals need to know how templates work.
  2. The information is centralised, therefore easier to monitor.
  3. Any editor can monitor the template by adding it to their watchlist.

  — Guarapiranga ☎ 03:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandals know how templates work, that is one reason we have template protection. As for watchlists, we should not require those watching this page to watch an additional 50ish pages if we can avoid it. As noted, area figures are not likely to change very often, and the more templates there are the closer pages move to exceeding Wikipedia:Template limits. CMD (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan Area

Please do not change the area of Afghanistan which is taken from Afghanistan school book. The total area of this country is 652,864 instead of 647,500. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZakiFrahmand1 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Afghanistan School Book in Dari (Geography Year 12 - Page 22-23) https://ael.af/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/G12_dr_geography.pdf

WHY??!!

I noted the geographic map. Why were Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh (both, completely of India) of shown as separate state in the globe? Is Wikipedia now evolving a separatist intention for India??!!

I request, please resolve this issue!

Utkarsh555 (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Assuming this refers to the second map in the lead, it shows various disputed borders with dotted lines, with thicker dots to represent the de facto borders. CMD (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean by that? I checked that lead ".svg" file. ().
Look at this carefully!. Rectify this one.
Show the actual borders, not the disputed ones!
Utkarsh555 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The de facto borders are shown there in solid lines, the claims only have dotted lines. CMD (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Utkarsh555, the map is meant only to display the actual de facto borders as it is at the moment. Removing the Chinese claim to Arunachal Pradesh means removing the Indian claims to the rest of Kashmir. No matter how one puts it, the map is meant to reflect the claims of each side and not India's alone.
Wikipedia has no interest in furthering any separatist/nationalist claims of countries.There is absolutely nothing wrong with the map. The map will not be changed without an actual shift of the demarcation lines on the ground. Seloloving (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Fine. DoWhatEverYouGuysFeelRight.
by the way, are you taiwanese or a singaporean? (or maybe you're a both?) Utkarsh555 (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Oriental studies § Proposed merge of Asian studies with Oriental studies

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oriental studies § Proposed merge of Asian studies with Oriental studies. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Orthographic Globe

Papua Province(s) is part of Indonesia and Asia. Hilman078 (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Politically part of Indonesia, but not geographically part of Asia, which is all this globe is saying. If you have reliable sources that show New Guinea in Asia and not Oceania, please provide them. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

China and India alternated as the largest economies from 1 to 1800 CE

Let's ignore that "economy" is not defined (Nominal GDP? PPP GDP? How did you find/calculate the value of all goods in 1 C? At that time nothing is being produced by humans other then agriculture, live-stock, wood and native-metal products) or that the word "China" didn't even exist until 500 years ago (and referred to entirely different land). The term "largest" requires a comparison to other civilizations/countries (Westphalia sovereignty didn't even exist until 500 years ago and the Qin-Dynasty claimed it owned all of Eurasia at different time periods - while Qin-Chinese scholars thought the earth was flat until the late 17th century) it also requires the assumption that civilizations/countries existed or were unified from 1 to 1800 CE (neither geographic India nor geographic China were unified by 1 government nor even 1 language for at least 1/3rd this time period).

For example the geographic land of today's India in the year 12 CE was ruled by over 13 different kingdoms who spoke over 6 different languages and practiced multiple different religions, while nearly all people on the continent of Europe above the Mediterranean were directly ruled by the Roman Empire or as Germanic colonies of the Roman Empire, thus because Roman emperor Augustus is estimated to rule over at least 6x as many people and over 9x as much land as any kingdom of India at that time (at least the same number of people under the rule of the Han Dynasty) - it seems obvious that no sensical metric for "economy" would determine the latter is smaller then the former.

The only possible explanation for this would be selectively deciding "Indian civilization" over lands ruled by over 13 different kingdoms and 6 different languages in 12 CE, was a single economic entity but that "European civilization" did not exist under the Roman Empire and was always fractured into the 30 some states it is today, which is objectively false. Thus again neither the terms "China"/"India"/"Economy" nor what qualifies as a unified-state from 1 to 1800 CE are defined - further even under extremely modest assumptions the claim is false.

With that said, I can think of ways to shorten the time period (to about 900 years) and add qualifications for what a "nation" and "economy" are that might make some historical estimates on population-size/farming-ability allow us to say a version of the claim is true. But as the claim stands now it doesn't make any sense and any reasonable interpretation of the claim is objectively false for at least 600 years over 1-1800 CE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.10.81 (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Papua

Papua (part of Indonesia) didn't manage to get highlighted on the .svg map of Asia. It'll be great if someone can edit it! Thank you :) DarrellTimothy (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

See this earlier discussion. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Khayitovan (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Khayitovan (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Geography

Asia me sheetkalin varsha ke chetra kau. Kaun se hai 27.60.96.221 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

What you're asking is unclear. Are you requesting that pictures of winter rain in Asia be added? If you are, could you suggest any suitable free or public-domain pictures? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Islam

Some sources (Operation World) put Islam as the largest Asian religion at 26.4% Is there a reason why your source is undercounting or not including the Middle East? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.92 (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead first sentence

I feel like the first sentence of the lead is a bit clunky. I propose it should be changed from this:

Asia (/ˈeɪʒə/ (listen), also UK: /ˈeɪʃə/) is a continent which is part of Eurasia.

to this:

Asia (/ˈeɪʒə/ (listen), also UK: /ˈeɪʃə/) is a continent which, along with Europe, makes up the landmass Eurasia.

Thoughts? 216.207.176.186 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asia/Archive_3&oldid=1251153374"