Talk:East Asia

Bhutan

Is Bhutan considered part of East Asia? If Mongolia and Tibet are then I don't see why it isn't.-Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.169.142 (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not by most sources. In fact, I'd say Bhutan's culture and geographical region is closer to South Asia or India than East Asia or China. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

By convention, no. However, most Bhutanese speak Sino-Tibetan languages. 73.243.151.79 (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau

Whether or not Taiwan is a separate country might be up for argument (I wont bother with this mess). These two, however, are definitely not separate countries, therefore should not be listed under "countries." Special Administrative Regions are not countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.137.233 (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

East Asia vs. North and Southeast Asia

i think there is confusion regarding the differences between East, Northeast, and Southeast Asia on this page. East Asia is the overarching region and should include both Northeast and Southeast Asian countries which are distinct subregions of larger East Asia. This "East Asia" page currently only represents Northeast Asian countries and should not be titled "East Asia" as it currently stands. It should be updated to include the mainland Southeast Asian countries (Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar or Burma) and the islands and archipelagos (Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei) to provide readers with a more accurate description of the region and it's subregions. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unagibloggy (talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinion isn't enough to serve as sources for any content that you want to add. You'll need reliable sources, otherwise your proposal/opinion is just original research. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Japan a 'Core Region'?

The map 'location eastasia shows japan as a 'core region' of east asia. My problem with this is that I have two atlases that both show it as being a seprate region. So, should it be changed to light green, 'sometimes included'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.187.141 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2012‎

Same as above. Maybe you saw something stated specifically on your copy of an atlas or world map, but until they are identified as reliable sources, personal opinion and "I saw/they saw" isn't enough to serve as sources for any content that you want to add. You'll need reliable sources, otherwise your proposal/opinion is just original research. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Variation in English usage.

A moderately notable modern semantic difference between the English language used in different countries, is that the unqualified word "Asian" in Britain tends to refer to people from South Asia ( India and nearby countries ), but in the USA and Australia it tends to refer to East Asians ( China and nearby countries ). This sometimes causes confusion.Eregli bob (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned at Asian and Wiktionary. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam?

But it's not highlighted on the map.... and my understanding is that it's South Asia (Along with Thailand, etc).... Plus the Wikipedia categories list "Russia" (parts of it) not Vietnam... Please fix.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Vietnam is considered part of Southeast Asia. Bobbbcat (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Culture-wise Vietnam is East Asian and should have a stronger presence in all chapters. Compare here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_cultural_sphere

The article here is about geographic region, not about culture. Australia is a Western country and by culture, it is Anglo-Celtic Western culture but you don't see Australia listed as part of Europe do you? Vietnam belongs to the Southeast Asia subregion and should not be listed here in this article. SifaV6 (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

James Watson

East Asian = high IQ Mongoloid (not Inuit, Amerindian and Southeast Asian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410F:F200:5099:16D:18D3:761 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for edit

The notes column for Independence Movement is entirely unsourced and contains at best biased, if not false, information. Both PRC and ROC claim Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang, and ROC in addition still officially claims Mongolia, due to their successor state status to the Manchu-ruled Qing Dynasty, which had internationally recognized sovereignty over those regions. While military action and Han migration did occur under PRC, these were not the origin of Chinese control of the territories, and the notes completely skims over the complexities of these issues. I suggest link to each movement's respective Wikipedia page instead. Additionally, Inner Mongolia Independence Movement is a minor movement that's more comparable to Cascadia Independence than those of Tibet and East Turkestan. Also, East Turkestani is not the demonym of proposed East Turkestan; the movement is largely associated with Uyghurs, and it lacks support from other Muslim groups historically occupied the region such as Kazakhs and the Hui. And the table is messing up with the page's format toward the end. 73.243.151.79 (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Mariana Islands

This page lists the Mariana Islands as part of East Asia, Miaoxigrenren claims they are part of East Asia as the Northern Mariana Islands are part of the East Asian Football Federation and therefore they are part of East Asia. But using that as evidence the Mariana Islands shouldn't Australia be listed in the Asia page as it is in the Asian Football Confederation? As of now I have removed the Mariana Islands. Bobbbcat (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I've never seen either Guam nor the Northern Mariana Islands be considered part of East Asia. According to the East Asian Football Federation page, even Palau was being considered to be a member of the organization. Selection of members appears to be strictly geographical (see Asian Football Confederation), with countries being divided into West, Central, South, East, and South East. Seems to be based out of geographical convenience than any real reason. As a side note, Australia is included in South East Asia. -Multivariable (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Since Guam is an East Asian Country, and Mariana Islands is right next to Guam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaoxingrenren (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this? As I mentioned above, the ASF is neither a definitive nor accurate source. Multivariable (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

TAIWAN IS A PROVINCE OF CHINA

According to the "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758", the People's Republic of China is the only legitimate representative of China, there is no 2nd China called "Republic of China". According to ISO 3166-2 used by Wikipedia, Taiwan (TWN/TW) is a province of China (CHN/CH) There is no Country existed in this world recognizes Taiwan as a Country, and only 21 countries recognize the "Republic of China" as the solo legitimate representative of entire China. Taiwan is just one of eight provinces under "Republic of China"'s division system.

Several concerns but I'll try to address the main ones. First, this isn't a discussion about who is the "only legitimate representative of China". I'm not sure why this is being brought up. This is about whether Taiwan should be listed under China in the page tables. ISO 3166-2 is a standardized coding system, so I'm not following why this is relevant.

Some of what you're proposing has been discussed ad nauseam on Taiwan's talk page. (I'd encourage you to look through the archives as well.) The consensus is reflected on the page. Note that nowhere in the article does it indicate that Republic of China (Taiwan) is a province of of the People's Republic of China (China). If you think this is inaccurate, I would encourage you to discuss it. "Taiwan" is the common name of the Republic of China, hence the page title (see WP:COMMONNAME). You can find many discussions about the page move from "Republic of China" to "Taiwan", including the most recent one. [1] Other uses for the term "Taiwan" are outlined at the top of the page, as well as in the disambiguation page (which addresses your concern about Taiwan Province).

Also, please refrain from leaving messages like this [2] on users' talk pages (see WP:AVOIDYOU, WP:CIV). Thanks! Multivariable (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please avoid using excessive emphasis (e.g. capital letters) in the title. Also, "T[aiwan] [is a province of] C[hina]" is a declarative statement, which again, without reliable sources, becomes original research. Regardless whether Taiwan is a province of China (since this is irrelevent to the topic), the ISO 3166-2 coding system may not have the authority to justify that Taiwan is a province of China — The International Organization for Standardization is an organization for standards — This further suggests that ISO does not have the right to represent the people of Taiwan (see "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" for more information regarding the right of self-determination). Therefore, it would be inappropriate to use ISO 3166-2 as a measure on whether Taiwan should be listed under China in this page. Thanks! 0xbbb6ad (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm also removing the discussion below in this section since it has no meta, is subjective, does not deal with facts, and does not stay on topic. Sorry and thanks! 0xbbb6ad (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox settlement

Is "Infobox settlement" really the best choice of infobox here? Power~enwiki (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227154316/http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/webcourse/key_points/kp_5.htm to http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/webcourse/key_points/kp_5.htm

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) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

China puffery?

The second paragraph of the article currently feels like peacocking about China specifically, e.g.: "For thousands of years, China largely influenced East Asia as it was principally the leading civilization in the region exerting its enormous prestige and influence on its neighbors." I realize China is the largest and most influential country in the region, but right now the paragraph seems to be written with the goal of emphasizing how China is Soooo Much Cooler than the other countries, not from an NPOV. AJD (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for maintaining the neutral point of view of wikipedia

In the world, different people has different points of views. Many of them may are against each other. During a disrupt topic, Wikipedia is proud of being netural to all of the points of views. I suggest everyone be consistence with this precious feature of Wikipedia.

There are several standard ways to maintain the neutral point of view. For example, the PRC government thinks Taiwan as part of PRC, while the ROC government disagrees with them. In this case, we shall not say that Taiwan is part of PRC, we shall not say that Taiwan is not part of PRC either. Instead, both statements like “the ISO short name for Taiwan is “Taiwan (province of China)” or “the Taiwan independence movement thinks Taiwan as an independent country” are welcome.

In the rare case, during a disrupt problem, both sides has a consensus. For example, both the PRC government and the ROC government thinks Taiwan is not part of “Mainland China”. The other terminologies accepted by both sides of disrupt include “Chinese Taipei” in sports, “Greater China” meaning Chinese-speaking World without specifying the sovereignty issue. In this case, using the consensus of both sides of disruption is better than supporting either sides.

I would request everyone to calm down and stay consistent with the Wikipedia principles. Please do not let your own point of view overwhelm the netrual point of view. Thanks for understanding each other and working together.PE fans (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place for political agenda editing. You are changing "Taiwan", the WP:COMMONNAME of the country, to "Taiwan (Province of China)"... this is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for Chinese government propaganda. Secondly, all your other edits also serve to downplay the use of "Taiwan". Take your own advice, read Wikipedia policy, and recognise that this is not the place for your political crusade. Citobun (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for political agenda editing. It is not allowed to change “Taiwan” into “Taiwan (province of China)”. The only thing allowed is “The ISO short name for Taiwan is Taiwan (province of China)”, “The common name for Taiwan is Taiwan” and “The International Tennis Federation name for Taiwan is Chinese Taipei”. Please do not confuse opinions like “genocide is an evil action", with facts like “genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."PE fans (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but please stop removing mentions of "Taiwan", which is the common English name for the place. It is not constructive. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m talking about an example in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What you’re doing is to replace the sentence “ISO name for Taiwan is Taiwan(province of China)” by “ISO name for Taiwan is Taiwan“. It is an analogy to replace “genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." by ““genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human goodness.”PE fans (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I opened a discussion here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Taiwan simply isn't a province of China, and it is factually incorrect for Wikipedia to suggest that it is. The neutral and common name of this country is "Taiwan". Citobun (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• This request is nearly unreadable and only borderline comprehensible and, to the extent a request for a change can be discerned at all in this mess, it should be rejected out of hand. It is certainly not a plea for neutrality. It is, in fact, a plea to adopt the Chinese Communist Party's point of view on a political question, in line with their attempts to force airline website to use exactly the language requested or fining retailers for listing "Taiwan" as a "Country of origin". This is a clear case of pushing WP:FALSEBALANCE and violates the principal of WP:COMMONNAME. My only surprise is that the 50 Cent Army is usually more competent in making such requests. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I was not changing “Taiwan” to “ Taiwan (province of China)” at all. What I did was changing “The ISO country name for Taiwan is Taiwan” to “The ISO country name for Taiwan is Taiwan(province of China)”. I was not bolstering the position of the Chinese government, but the positions of International Organization for Standardization and in the sport case, the position of the International Olympic Committee. I want the Wikipedia be strictly same as the reliable sources, for example [3] If the position of Chinese governments work, then Taiwan will be forbidden from attending international affairs and for example, in ISO, will not have its own country code at all. If the Taiwan independent movement works, then they will participate the Olympic game under the name “Taiwan”. The current neutral situation is between them. The international Olympic committee views Taiwan as an independent country called “Chinese Taipei”. The International Monetary Fund views Taiwan as an independent country called “Taiwan (province of China)”. If you ignore the opinions of the reliable sources, Wikipedia will not exist at all. Please stop pushing the change from the opinions of reliable sources to your original research. Thanks. PE fans (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The current situation is that the Chinese government pushs airlines to replace TW by CN. The is not supported by the ISO. What ISO insists in their website is that an independent country called “Taiwan(province of China)” has its own country code TW and TWN. I’m trying to cite the opinion of ISO when describing the ISO code. I didn’t change the common name column at all. Please look at the table changed in [4] carefully and find out that there are two different columns.PE fans (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure of all of the details of this dispute, but for the specific issue of the ISO name for Taiwan, it's "Taiwan (Province of China)". Anyone can check the source and see for themselves. So for an entry listed as "ISO name", it'd be dishonest to use anything other than that name. However, in a broader sense, Taiwan's name is... "Taiwan" since that's simply what it's known as in English, and WP:COMMONNAME governs these things. Also, when you come to the question of whether Taiwan is a sovereign state, it definitely is one, albeit one with limited recognition. See List of sovereign states#Criteria for inclusion and Taiwan's entry on that list. By the normal definitions of political science and international relations, Taiwan meets the criteria for statehood. It is a government that exercises exclusive sovereignty over a territory and the people who live there. Most nations don't officially recognize Taiwan, and China claims their territory as its own, but neither of those things negate the reality that the Taiwanese people are governed by the Taiwanese government, not by the Chinese government. When discussing official names and designations, those should be used, but when discussing the general situation, official declarations are all but meaningless. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. In the common name column, we should use “Taiwan” and in the “ISO short name” column, we should use “Taiwan (province of China)”.PE fans (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Use more accurate and rigorous description in the infobox and lead of this article

The relationship between China and Taiwan is so controversial. In order to deal with the trouble in this article well, in my opinion, it is a good idea to use more accurate and rigorous description in the infobox and lead of this article. It is undoubted that both People's Republic of China and Republic of China are political entities; both Hong Kong and Macau are Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China, aren't political entities. Thus, we should show the undoubted fact in the description of this article.

In the first paragragh of the lead of this article, there is a sentence said that Geographically and geopolitically, the region constitutes China, Hong Kong, Macau, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. According to the undoubted fact mentioned above, I think it should be said that Geographically and geopolitically, East Asia constitutes People's Republic of China, Republic of China, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea and Japan. In the infobox of this article, in order to avoid the dispute, the first issue "States" should be changed into "Political entities". There are six political entities in East Asia: People's Republic of China, Republic of China, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea and Japan. Both Hong Kong and Macau should be deleted from the political entities in East Asia. In the second issue of the infobox "Major cities", in order to avoid the dispute, "China" should be changed into "People's Republic of China", "Taiwan" should be changed into "Republic of China". Both Hong Kong and Macau should be listed as the cities of the People's Republic of China. It will be more accurate and rigorous after those changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.192.187.31 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think so. It is good time to correct some words in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.43.158 (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

China and Taiwan are perfectly clear. As is Greater China when it includes Taiwan. I have no problem with relegating Hong Kong and Macau as cities. This is not a political article and the repetitiveness of China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Hong Kong, Macau and sometimes Mongolia and Vietnam. The list appearing over and over makes reading this obnoxious. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that both Hong Kong and Macau should be listed as the cities of the People's Republic of China. However, I oppose that "China and Taiwan are perfectly clear". Different people have different opinions. Some people (including the government of the People's Republic of China and pro-Chinese reunification people in Taiwan area) insist that Taiwan is a part of China, but some people (including pro-Taiwan independence people in Taiwan area) insist that Taiwan is independent. If we still use the so-called common names of the two political entities (in other words, regard "People's Republic of China" as "China", and regard "Republic of China" as "Taiwan"), the dispute mentioned above will be continuous and endless. It is very neutral to use the official names of the two political entities, "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.42.231 (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Political names are not neutral, they are political. Further, in this case, they are peculiar to two sides of a stale civil war and particularly unused except by internal non-majority factions on each side. This argument has been made for at least 17 years on Wikipedia. This is not the place to revive that dead discussion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. The official names of the political entities, "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China", are more precise, and aren't ambiguous. The term "China" and "Taiwan" are too ambiguous. So I support to use the official names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.0.188 (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

In English, "China" and "Taiwan" are both very clear and distinct. When speaking of the country "China", Taiwan is essentially never included. Whatever polemicists might insist, there's zero ambiguity in standard usage. This is why the articles Taiwan and China are named the way they are. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

However, in English, the term "China" and "Taiwan" are really ambiguous. What relationship do "China" and "Taiwan" have? Is "Taiwan" a part of "China"? Different people have different opinions. The government of the People's Republuc of China, most countries of the world, and the United Nations, insist One-China policy, agree that "Taiwan" is a part of "China", but pan-green in Taiwan area insist that Taiwan is independent. You said "When speaking of the country "China", Taiwan is essentially never included." Why do you think so? Do you support Taiwan independence movement? I agree the comment above said that "The official names of the political entities, "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China", are more precise, and aren't ambiguous.", which is so correct. In conclusion, I think it is a good idea to use the official names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.238 (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm simply talking about standard usage in the English language, not about politics. When people say "China" they mean "the PRC" and when they say "Taiwan" they mean "the ROC". That's just what they're called in English. In newspapers, books, and common conversation, when someone says "China", that doesn't include Taiwan unless they specifically mention it. That's just how the terms are used in English, regardless of the complexities of the political situation. Like I said, just look at the articles China and Taiwan as an example of this. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

But it is very relevant to the politics in this article. Due to the dispute political status of Taiwan, we should use the offfical names, "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China", to avoid the dispute. You repeated that "China doesn't include Taiwan unless they specifically mention it", which is likely to suppport Taiwan independence movement, strongly intensifies the dispute. Please use the precise and accurate words, the official names here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.121.170.56 (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Should we add Uyghurs to the ethnic groups of the article?

They are a Turkic ethnic group that live in Xinjiang. They are Muslims. 72.180.80.128 (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I have added Uyghurs to the introduction of the article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, a question

Hello, i am new editor. I want to ask if this sentence could be changed. “Culturally, China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam are commonly seen as being encompassed by cultural East Asia (East Asian cultural sphere).” I think that Taiwan should be mentioned here. China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. Because we are a sovereign nation with own history, culture and language (native and hakka). I am nut sire how to edit because only long members can edit this page, so i am asking that someone change it. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HlaaluTW (talk • contribs) 07:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2018

hongkong and taiwan is not a state! 194.39.218.10 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please see the footnote about the usage of "state". —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan by definition is a state, albeit one with limited recognition. Hong Kong is not a state, though it does display many characteristics of a state. Ultimately, Hong Kong is not a state since its government is subservient to the Chinese government. Conversely, Taiwan is a state since its government is independent from the Chinese government. Hong Kong and Macau are considered for simplicity's sake to be "dependencies" within this article, though that's not exactly what they are. The political statuses of Hong Kong and Macau are very complicated. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2018

Remove the sentence "Culturally, China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam are commonly seen as being encompassed by cultural East Asia (East Asian cultural sphere)." This is vandalism appearing exactly three times with conflicting sources on the East Asia page. Sources [2] and [60] defines the Sinosphere and not the region of East Asia. Sources [58] and [59] are dead links. Sources [3], [5], and [52] define Vietnam as a Southeast Asian country.

Remove "File:East Asian Cultural Sphere.png" with the comment "China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam are culturally East Asian". Informal typos and no reliable sources that returns to the definition of the Sinosphere. Currently this is very misleading as Vietnam has no content under Economy, Territorial and regional data, Culture, Collaboration, and Cities and towns on the East Asia page. Nippondiane (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done:: if you want to fix dead links please use WP:IABOT. No indication this is vandalism. SITH (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2019

"East Asian vocabulary and scripts are often derived from Classical Chinese and Chinese script" how can you use the word "often". "Often" means ~70%. But ethnic groups often have their own speaking language ( I'm not talking about writing language ). They can use some of Chinese's words to make new word but you can't say that 70% of the words are derived from Chinese. If you want to prove it, run a program and count how many that country's words come from China. We should change this line to "Some East Asian words and scripts are derived from Classical Chinese and Chinese script" Mrr0j30t (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Taiwan

Recently, an editor has removed Taiwan from the article. This is considered vandalism since Taiwan is regarded as a "state" in the English Wikipedia article "Taiwan". Wikipedia doesn't follow United Nations recognition alone. It also takes into account many other factors. The fact alone of Taiwan not being a member of the United Nations does not give Chinese Wikipedians the right to censor its presence from this article and various others across the English and Chinese Wikipedias. Wikipedia is not a platform for the propagation of political propaganda. It is a platform that is designed to teach people around the world about the perspectives of people from around the world. So, Taiwan is here to stay. And any additional cases of vandalism will be reverted and reported. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a platform for the propagation of political propagand"

Yes so stop spreading our your pathetic political propaganda of "Taiwan as state". Shame on you! 71.231.160.7 (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in East Asia

This is a discussion about the ethnic groups in East Asia. Using the data from other wikipedia pages, we know the following data: 1. There are 1.3 billion Han Chineses, 1,268,375,111 in Mainland China, 23,575,365 in Taiwan, 6,723,786 in Hong Kong, 731,000 in Japan, and 663,400 in Macau. 2. There are 120 million Yamato people, mostly in Japan. 3. There are 83 million Koreans, 50,423,955 in South Korea, 25,300,000 in North Korea, 2,461,386 in China and 824,977 in Japan. They are majority. 4. There are 18 million Zhuang people, mostly in Guangxi, China. 5. There are 12 million Uyghurs, mostly in Xinjiang, China. 6. There are 10,586,087 Hui people, mostly in China. 7. There are 10,430,000 Manchu people, 10,410,585 in Mainland China, 12,000 in Taiwan. 8. There are 9,426,007 Miao people in China. 9. There are around 9.3 million Mongols, 6,146,730 in Inner Mongolia, China, 3,201,377 in Mongolia. 10. There are around 9 million Yi people, mostly in China. 11. There are around 8 million Tujia people, mostly in China. 12. There are 6.3 million Tibetan people in China. 13. There are 2,960,293 Kam people, mostly in China. 14. There are 2,637,421 Yao people in China. 15. There are around 2 million Ryukyuan people, mostly in Japan. Given this fact, I disagree with @Jargo Nautilus: who includes indigenous Taiwanese peoples (around 569,008 people), and the Ainu (25,000–200,000) in the leading section because for example Bai people, Hani people, Li people, Kazakhs, Dai people have 1-2 million population in East Asia, much more than Taiwanese indigenous peoples and Ainu people, but listing all of them will be too redundant. The other issue is that living in the area controlled by People's Republic of China or Republic of China does not split the ethnic group Han because ethnic group has nothing to do with the political status of the area they live. There is no sources supporting that idea that Han Taiwanese is not Han people. I hope to hear your opinions. PE fans (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I am the person who recently added a more extensive list of minority ethnic groups in East Asia. I tried to add a more diverse range of ethnic groups by including recognised indigenous minorities across several states, such as Taiwan (Taiwanese Aborigines) and Japan (Ryukyuans and Ainu). The list was loosely based on population but I omitted many groups from the People's Republic of China (mainland China, PRC) since there are way too many ethnic groups in the PRC to include all of them within the introduction to the article. I included some of the most notable Chinese minorities, such as the Zhuang, Uyghurs, Mongolians (also the native ethnic group of Mongolia), and Tibetans, all of which are recognised as being the native ethnic groups of several autonomous regions in China, such as Guangxi, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet (Xizang).

The Hui and Manchu ethnic groups are less distinct from the Han Chinese (in comparison to, say, the Tibetans), but they can also be added since Ningxia is designated a "Hui Autonomous Region" and since the Manchus have historical significance in China (due to having been the rulers of the Qing dynasty). The Hui ethnic group is an ethnoreligious group defined by being "Muslim" (but excluding Central Asian ethnic groups such as the Kazakhs and Uyghurs, who are commonly but not always Muslim), and the Manchurian language is borderline extinct, but there are still over 10 million people who identify as carrying Manchu ancestry. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Your classification of ethinic groups by states is problematic. There are 2,461,386 Koreans in China, they are considered as minority by Chinese government but they are majority of East Asia because Koreans in China, Koreans in the area controlled by North Korea and Koreans in the area controlled by South Korea are NOT three distinct ethnic groups. There is only one ethnic group--- Koreans. Similar issues happens for Han people. If you subdivide the ethinic group by the area they live, then the most problematic issue would be that Mongols people in Inner Mongolia is twice more than the population of the states Mongolia. Since I've found a numerical number of sources supporting the idea that Han, Yamato and Korean people are majority group in East Asia If you disagree with me, you have to find the same amount of sources supporting that Han Taiwenese is not Han people. Otherwise, you will be in charge of doing original research in wikipedia and I will report it.

As for the list of ethnic groups, the most ideal way would be asking everyone in East Asia to vote for the list. In this ideal vote, everyone is born equal, i.e. Ainu people is NOT 40 times more important than Tujia people. Of course, this ideal vote is not realistic. However, this ideal way is equivalent to couting the population of ethnic group. PE fans (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You need to remember that this is the introduction to the article, so it would become very cumbersome if all of the information is included. The introduction to an article is supposed to introduce the various points being covered across the entire article, hence why it is better to cover a diverse range of subtopics rather than focus only on a single subtopic. The reason that the Indigenous Taiwanese have been included within the introduction is that they are recognised as an indigenous minority in Taiwan. In fact, they are more important than many other ethnic groups since the majority of ethnic groups in East Asia are not explicitly or officially recognised as being indigenous. I am uncertain of whether the Ryukyuans and Ainu are recognised as indigenous, though, because sometimes these things can be unclear. Japan seems to recognise Ryukyuans as being a Japanese subgroup, rather than as a distinct ethnic group. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Being indigenous does not mean that 1 indigenous people is more important than 10 Tujia people. It seems offensive if a Tujia people see that the 569,008 Taiwanese indigenous people are included but the voice of 8 million Tujia people is omitted. To avoid this issue and to make the introduction short, why not only include the three majority groups: Han, Yamato and Korean? By the way, even though the WP:COMMONNAME of Han people is Han Chinese, Han is not the same as Chinese, considering the issue of minority Chinese. So maybe we can call them Han people in the introduction.PE fans (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Up to now, you haven't found a single source suggesting that Han Taiwanese is not ethnically Han people. Since Wikipedia is not a forum by WP:NOTFORUM, your unsourced statement "The four most populous ethnic groups of East Asia are the Han Chinese, Yamato Japanese, Koreans, and Han Taiwanese" will be replaced by the sentence "The three most populous ethnic groups of East Asia are the Han, Yamato and Koreans" supported by 15 sources. As for the list of minority groups in the introduction, maybe we can delete it because both of us don't have sources about this list and we can't reach agreement on it so far. PE fans (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I forget to mention that "Tujia" in Chinese means "local" or "indigenous". PE fans (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have already merged the descriptions "Han Chinese" and "Han Taiwanese" into just "Han". The main issue that I had with the term "Han Chinese" is that "Chinese" is a nationality whereas "Han" is an ethnic group. Han Chinese and Han Taiwanese people do indeed belong to the same ethnic group, but I dispute the notion that they belong to the same nationality. If the ethnic group is just indicated as "Han", then it is okay to merge the two nationalities.

Regarding indigenous status, I disagree. Indigenous status isn't just a fancy name or a trophy. Rather, indigenous status provides a certain ethnic group with special privileges that other ethnic groups are not entitled to. The purpose of recognising a group as indigenous is to further their civil rights and to improve their general welfare, presumably because they have been oppressed in the past (primarily due to colonialism). Since the Chinese and Japanese governments are both very obsessed with maintaining national unity, neither government has recognised any ethnic groups living within their borders as being indigenous (aside from the majority ethnic groups, those being the Han Chinese and Yamato Japanese, respectively). The only ethnic groups in East Asia that are definitively recognised as indigenous are the 16 Indigenous Taiwanese ethnic groups, as well as the Han Chinese (majority in China), Koreans (majority in Korea), and Yamato Japanese (majority in Japan). Han Taiwanese people are not recognised as indigenous (to Taiwan) because they migrated from China to Taiwan throughout the past five centuries or so. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the word "Tujia" allegedly meaning "Indigenous", this doesn't prove that the Tujia people are recognised as indigenous by Chinese law. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Why not just merge the sentence to the previous paragraph? "Major religions in East Asia include Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Taoism, and Shintoism. Major languages in East Asia include Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. The three most populous ethnic groups of East Asia are the Han, Yamato and Koreans" seems natural because, religions, languages and ethnic groups are all subtopics. As you mentioned, it's better to cover a diverse range of subtopics rather than focus only on a single subtopic. PE fans (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edit. However, Han (China and Taiwan) is still not as good as Han because as I mentioned, nationality is not the same as ethnic groups. Zhuang, Uyghurs, Hui, Manchu have Chinese nationality but are not Han.PE fans (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I described the Han as "Han (China and Taiwan)" because most people have no idea precisely what "Han" refers to. Furthermore, the Koreans also call themselves "Han", which, in my opinion, is extremely confusing. That's why I've just referred to the Koreans as "Koreans". As far as I'm aware, Korea only has one native ethnic group, the Han/Koreans, so this isn't a huge issue in Korea. However, in China, the Koreans cannot be called "Han" since that is what the Han Chinese call themselves, so Koreans in China are instead called "Chosen", which is derived from "Joseon", the historical Korean state. In any case, the description "Han (China and Taiwan)" just means that Han people are the majority in China and Taiwan. It doesn't mean that they are the only ethnic groups in those states. I will try to clarify the description. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the description to "Han (Chinese)". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit. I have removed several sentences in the introduction is shorten it. As you mentioned, it's better to cover a diverse range of subtopics rather than focus only on a single subtopic.PE fans (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. By the way, my earlier statement regarding Japan's recognition of indigenous peoples is incorrect. The Japanese government officially recognised the Ainu as an indigenous people of Hokkaido, Japan in 2019 (EDIT: 2019, not 2008). But the Ryukyuans are still officially recognised by the Japanese government as a subgroup of the Yamato Japanese ethnic group, and they are still institutionally discriminated against. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, the bill was poorly received by some members of the Ainu community. Nonetheless, it passed, so the Japanese government officially recognises the Ainu as an indigenous people of Hokkaido, Japan, as of 2019. In 2008, the Japanese government stated that it intended to recognise the Ainu as an indigenous people, but didn't actually officially recognise them at that time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Core Cultures of East Asia: "CJKV"

Is there any evidence of this abbreviation being widely used in modern times? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop treating Vietnam as "Chinese influecned"

Vietnam is different and neither to be categoried the same group with China. - anonymous

Notes and Refs

A note here, note a is listed as "Taiwan Province of China" by the IMF, while ref 101 is Listed as "Hong Kong SAR" by IMF, 102 is Listed as "Macao SAR" by IMF, 104 is From 1949 to 1971, the ROC was referred as "China" or "Nationalist China". I believe these should go to note section. Also, repeated use of 103, 105 ref "Country codes". iso.org. Sorry that I couldn't edit it myself as I am not sure if I can edit it properly, thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

"highly autonomous"

Given recent developments, does it really make sense to say Hong Kong and Macau... are officially highly autonomous in the lead anymore? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 20:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I was the person who originally wrote that sentence. There's a reason that I used the term "officially". Something being "official" doesn't necessarily make it objectively real in practice. In the same way, China calls Tibet the "Xizang Autonomous Region", but it's definitely not actually autonomous beyond its name. In any case, officially, Hong Kong is a part of China according to China's laws, but it is also officially highly autonomous under China's laws. This explains Hong Kong's status as a "dependency" rather than as a core part of China or as a separate country. (This also applies to Macau.) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Alternative definitions

I've removed Singapore and Vietnam from the "alternative definitions" of East Asia section. Quite simply, none of the cited references claim that either country is considered part of East Asia in any definition. The sources do say that these two countries share cultural and economic similarities with East Asia, but to make the leap that they are therefore part of East Asia in some alternative definition (whose definition?) is original research. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ineedtostopforgetting regarding the repeated attempts to use socks to insert this original research into the article (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Bennv3771 (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

^ I'm not aware that this has been added over before, and that a user tried to add it previously. But I'm pretty this viewpoint of alternative definitions is also shared by other people, including me. You can't really deny the significant cultural and economic similarities that Singapore and Vietnam has with the countries in "East Asia". Singapore has been a ethnically majority Chinese for as long as Taiwan has, both countries who had Austronesian peoples as indigenous. Even in mainland China, the original Chinese ancestors who originated from the Yellow River way in North China only came South (places like Guangdong) much later. (for Singapore, according to Peranakans, they settled between the 15th and 17th centuries, and Han immigration to Taiwan was during the same period) Mandarin is official and widespread too. Vietnam has been ruled by various Chinese dynasties for almost a millennium, First Era of Northern Domination, etc and they are genetically similar, and used Chữ Nôm for a really long time. You can argue them changing script might make them less East Asian, but Korea also dropped it for Hangul. I'm sure the borders of East Asia geographically are not strictly defined, there's no separate tectonic plates and the such and during the middle ages people outside of what is now "East Asia" or "South East Asia" referred them as "Far East" together. It's a hard sell to consider that a person living in Kashgar or Ulaanbaatar is more culturally East Asian than a person living in Hanoi or Singapore when you compare them to a person from Taipei or Fukuoka, right?

It's a similar situation in Europe (where I'm from) with the debates whether countries such as Czechia and Poland is in Central and Eastern Europe or Lithuania being in either Northern and Eastern Europe. For Estonia, there's a literally an article Nordic identity in Estonia mentioning how they should be considered Nordic or not. But in these articles, including here - Eastern_Europe#Definitions, they are very much pointed out in the article, as it is still interesting information for readers to read. I'm from Croatia, and there's separate definitions defining if we're in Central or Southeast Europe. It's not harmful or useless information and not original research, because I see organizations also adhering to this viewpoint such as the East Asian Institute (Singapore) being located in Singapore or this journal here [5] about Vietnam. I'm just saying I think it definitely is useful information for a non-Asian. Sorry if my English is over the place, it's not my first language. 85.10.56.226 (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No one is denying "the significant cultural and economic similarities that Singapore and Vietnam has with the countries in "East Asia"." If there are reliable sources (not Wikipedia editors) that share "this viewpoint of alternative definitions" then please cite them before restoring original research. Again, it is original research to make the leap that because there is a East Asian Institute (Singapore) therefore Singapore is part of East Asia. As for the journal article you cited, I do not have access to the full article. Please email me the full article so that I can verify the context. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what defines as original research or not. Because I had thought the examples I provided such as the organization as well as the journal were credibly enough to say that this view is outside of just Wikipedia editors. I'm sure it should be easy to find more mentions throughout the internet where they are classified as East Asia. Another source, from the World Economic Forum, points out Singapore and Vietnam as examples of how East Asia has controlled the coronavirus. [6] Here is from the World Bank [7] about "Singapore as an Innovative City in East Asia : An Explorative Study of the Perspectives of Innovative Industries". (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The example of the organization was indeed original research. The weforum article is credible though and was the sort of source I was looking for. It does seem to consider Southeast Asia as a whole to be a region in East Asia though, so that should be made clear in the article. (This is in response to the original version of your above comment, before you edited it) Bennv3771 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah sorry for editing, was including examples. Perhaps linking the article is original research, but we could cite it from the organization directly from their website if need be. Also, here is from OSAC [8], [9]. Yeah, it shows that there could be alternative definitions for it, which is why i think it's okay for the article. All these sources should be good enough, I've seen bolder claims on other topics with weaker sources before... 85.10.56.226 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Proxy sock edits struck. CMD (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan Relations Act is not a military alliance

It's pretty obvious that Taiwan Relations Act (which terminated the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty between Taiwan ROC and United States) is NOT a military alliance in any traditional sense of the word. At best, it talks about "maintaining peace" together which is very different language from the US-Korea or US-Japan alliance texts. It obligates US to ensure Taiwan has the weapons it needs to defend itself but does not explicitly obligate US to come to it's defense in war time.Rwat128 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 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:

• Taipei skyline cityscape at night with full moon.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Arunachal pradesh part of india

Arunachal pardesh part india don't snow in china now you roughly snow in china after few years you completely snow in china. It is wrong. 42.105.78.118 (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect information

In the Definitions and Boundaries section, the map of the UNSD geoscheme of Asia is incorrect. The UNSD places Iran under South Asia, not West Asia.

In the Religion section, the pie chart does not accurately display what the Legend describes. Ricemaster12 (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we go by what the mainstream of reliable sources say, your insistance to label Iran as a Central Asian or south Asian country is starting to be disruptive.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

? Ricemaster12 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/ Ricemaster12 (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)