Talk:East Asia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inclusion of Vietnam

Vietnam is considered part of East Asia by many people. That is why I added Vietnam, and because some people do not consider it part of East Asia, that is also why I added the caveat about Southeast Asia. Vietnam should not be removed from the page. --Lowellian 08:21, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, see MediaWiki Talk:East Asia for the discussion.Lowellian 09:54, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

While culturally is obviously a lot in common with East Asian countries, I think most people see Vietnam as definatly South-East Asian. Of course, there isn't anything wrong with mentioning the other viewpoint, as the article does. Why should this be a contentious issue? It's not like one or the other is "better". They're just geographical regions. 66.81.215.117 23:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And besides, Vietnam is only "Southeast Asian" in terms of geographic poistion; it's cultural, ethnic, political and religious formation came from Southern Chinese patterns. If Vietnam has to be in "SE Asia", than so does Southern China.

And also, should Mongolia be moved down to the Central Asia section, as opposed to East Asia? In terms of ethnic origin (Mongol, Altaic, etc.), religion (Tibetan Buddhism), political history (Mongol, Russian patterns) and region, Mongolia does not have much in common with China in any sense. User: Le Anh-Huy

Come on, The name Viet-Nam is a Chinese based word in itself, the Viets share almost all of their culture with the Chinese. If Vietnam isn't included in the East Asian cultural sphere at least then Mongolia shouldn't be part of cultural East Asia. - Chen Ah-Huang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.178.192 (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2006

-- Someone removed Vietnam off all the sections on the east asia page just recently (although the page had remained basically unchanged for a LONG time) and they didn't even bother notifying anyone although there'd been extensive discussion on it. To remove Vietnam off the "cultural" east asia section is even more absurd.

By the way, leading prestigious colleges on east asian studies including Harvard list Vietnam as culturally east asian. If you want proof, I'll link you myself on Harvard's page (and other universities', if needed).

--Vietnam in the modern sense is considered to be south-east asian. Culturally it may have been largely influenced by China, but many academics would consider it not of geographic East Asia. They may have been sinocized but unlike the other Yue tribes they did not immerged themselves in Chinese society completely. And besides this article is mainly refering to "East Asia", which means CJK, China, Japan, Korea. -anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.225.130 (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2006

-- What you say is noted, however: 1. You say "many academics would consider it not of geographic east asia". NO academics refer to Vietnam as geographically east asian. But that's not the point. Since when did the page ever claim Vietnam as "geographically east asian"? It has always been put under "Cultural East Asia". This page doesn't refer to CJK alone, it is to inform people of the many different definitions of "east asia" and what it entails - including culture, geography, politics - and conflicting views. The fact that Vietnam belongs to cultural east asia should be noted because it is said as so in many of the top institutions of the world - including those which have some of the top east asian programs. It should be noted that while it's not geographically east asian, it definitely fits into a certain cultural sphere. Basically Vietnam's inclusion (among other country's inclusions here) are to insure that more people know about Vietnam's place culturally as opposed to geographically.

I'm definitely not saying that you are wrong - because it's just a different opinion - but since wikipedia is NPOV - it lists both opinions.

-- You are right, Vietnam is considered to be part of the East-Asian cultural sphere and should be included, so I stand corrected. -anonymous

I stumbled upon this article and removed Vietnam without knowing this dispute was going on. You may revert it but as a South-East Asian myself, we have always accepted Vietnam as a SEA country and never even thought of it as being in East Asia. It is true that their culture is more similar to China than any other SEA country; the aboriginal tribes are more closely related to those of the Philippines and Thailand. Mongolia, as far as I knew, is not in East Asia but is considered to be on the eastern side of Central Asia or sometimes even North Asia. If you want my personal opinion, I think that people should stop looking for terms like "East" or "South Asia" and remember that it's mostly political. China, for example, borders on four of the five "4/5" regions of Asia. It is hardly on the eastern side. The whole idea of CJK is actually a way of stereotyping by suggesting that all three countries are similar enough to be put together. Japan and Korea have both been influenced by China, just as Vietnam has, but they are both distinct. Why is it that many people can tell a Japanese or Korean from a Chinese just by looking at them? China is a very big country and both Korea and Japan are actually far away. This is a strange place for me to put in my two cents but I think we shoud stop identifying ourselves by subregions and simply see ourselves as Asians whether it is from the South or South-East. But, of course, that would render this article meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.104.38 (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2006‎

response: Your points about the "looks" of Chinese or Vietnamese people arew more based on assumptions or even ignorance. China and its peoples are far too heterogenous for it to be brushed with one stroke. Excluding Vietnam is based on lack of knowledge of that country and its people. The Vietnamese are known as "Kinh"/Jing and are NATIVE to southern China and northern Vietnam...and really has nothing to do with "Southeast Asia". Le Anh-Huy 10:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

response:

^ I agree with you kind of on some points...but at the end of the day east/southeast asia are just geographic regions. This is why there's even a discussion. Because some like to look at "east asia" as a cultural region and not just geographically (which is how it should be looked at..) Let's look at Singapore for instance...they are (technically) southeast asians like Vietnam, they too belong to ASEAN - but the majority is Chinese, though some may have malay blood. The only reason we have articles like these is because things always seem to have to be put into groups when it comes to scholarly research and the study of culture - whether in universities or in general. It stems from an idea that people from certain regions will be likely similar culturally which in the case of Vietnam was rendered obsolete by the millenium of chinese domination. Subregions should not be so emphasized - I agree with this - but the truth of the matter is in the scholarly world it is and that's why some things need to be clarified. I'm tired of people generalizing or assuming things about Vietnamese culture based on its geographic region.

Also..what aboriginal Vietnamese tribes are you referring to? The majority of people in Vietnam are kinh ethnic Vietnamese who came from North Vietnam and South China, and then constantly moved down - expanding Vietnam to what it is today. According to genetic studies ethnic Vietnamese (called Kinh) Vietnamese are genetically close to Laotians and Southern Chinese, not Thailand or the Philippines -and yes, genetics vary widely in Southeast asia anyway. Vietnam has tons of aboriginal tribes/ethnic minorities (so do other countries) - but it doesn't make those groups ethnic Vietnamese. Discussion of physical phenotypes is pretty useless though because they vary so much everywhere and everyone has different opinions. The matter discussed at hand here is geography and culture, not phenotypes. But of course we've already established that Vietnam is definitely not in geographic east asia, just in the Chinese cultural sphere. When others regard Vietnam as Southeast asian, it has nothing to do with Vietnam's culture. This is important because it's constantly discussed - who has more Chinese influence? Korea or Vietnam? Japan has even less than Vietnam. There was even a book just released this year by Cambridge University that claimed there were no two countries more similar than China or Vietnam (China and Vietnam: Politics of Asymmetry). From my experience in university clubs and communicating with other members from other universities - Vietnamese and Chinese students often hold joint cultural events at their school lol for their cultural organizations

Why Vietnam is even included in here is not based on opinions of a few people online, but is mentioned in books and taught at some of the top institutions in the world. Maybe someday people will stop using these subregion-geographical terms incorrectly.. :( as far as I know - CJK first only existed anyway in reference to the software developed for those countries' scripts - and it only began being used for the regions themselves later on in an incorrect way by others - which btw - if you want to google, "CJKV" is the latest software, not just CJK anymore lol since Vietnam used to use their own Chinese characters-based script

By the way - it's perfectly right for you to discuss it here hehe. Thank you for taking the time to write out your opinion rather than just doing whatever :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.104.72 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2006‎

East Asia here refers more to geographical & cultural Northeast Asia, than anything else. Modern-day Vietnam is neither culturally nor geographically Northeast Asian. Like one of the previous posters said, Vietnamese culture was largely influenced by the Chinosphere in the past, but ever since its independence Vietnam has been influenced more by America & Southeast Asia than anything else (ie by joining ASEAN). Vietnam has cut itself off from the Chinosphere and developed its own different culture.

Geographically, Vietnam was never part of East Asia. China's included only because its major cities (and therefore political & cultural influences) are in the middle of East Asia. If the Chinese capital were in Tibet today, I'm pretty sure people will start thinking of it as part of South Asia. Kerry65 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Revertions by Wik

Wik, would you mind telling us what is wrong with the current version, before reverting once again? Your revertions are mostly removing information. --Cantus 23:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

CJK

Re "The regions of China, Japan, and Korea, which have historically related writing systems, are sometimes collectively referred to as CJK.": CJK refers to languages and/or scripts, not regions. A-giau 22:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

East Asia

East Asia refers to Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia combined. This article depicts East Asia as synonymous with Northeast Asia which is wrong.

• You are right however that use of "east asia" which combines northeast and southeast is rarely used today, as evident in university studies or the multitude of news articles dealing with such. Perhaps there should be a small explanation about hwo "East asia" is sometimes used to refer to both geographic Northeast and Southeast combined regardless of culture or anything else. - Anonymous user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.232.105 (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2006‎

Mongolia and East Asia or Central Asia?

The maps on the page should be changed. Mongolia can't be on geographical East Asia on one, and not on the other. User Tridungvo 10.33 10.12.2006

In terms of ethnic origin (Mongol, Altaic, etc.), religion (Tibetan Buddhism), political history (Mongol, Central Asian, Russian patterns) and region, Mongolia does not have much in common with China in any sense. So shouldn't Mongolia be moved to the "Central Asia" section? Le Anh-Huy 01:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. The Scythian 00:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mongolian society is influenced by China and is usually considered East Asia a part of East Asia geographically and culturally. RevolverOcelotX

• How so? How is Mongolian society influenced by China? Can you source this? The Scythian 00:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Such a blunt and too short of a response (not really an answer) like that doesn't really explain; we should provide more explicit reasons as to how Mongolia is in the East Asian sphere. Most websites for Central Asian news have a Mongolia section, and so this opinion that Mongolia is in that region, is by no means of my own. I already put the reasons above why I think it is in Central Asia, and not "East Asia". If you wanna talk "influence", Mongols probably "influenced" the Chinese more so than vice versa; look at how Chinese traditional costumes have changed throughout the centuries; the addition of the neck collar is either a Mongolian or Manchu adaption. Whereas, Mongol and Manchu clothes have stayed more or less the same. Le Anh-Huy 02:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I am going to go ahead an remove it. The Scythian 00:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone please explain why a country can not be in both East and Central Asia? Yaan (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can Central Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia and Northern Asia be intersecting sets, where the subset of the intersection is Mongolia? Is Turkey included in Europe in some way or Kalmykia included in Asia in some way? Or is Azerbaijan included in Middle East in some way? Sorry for messy question. Gantuya eng (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being pedantic, but I think it should either be "a subset" or just "where the intersection" :) . In my (humble) opinion, all these Central (Eastern, Western) Asias, Europes, Africas are better described as fuzzy sets, if one wants to bring in maths at all. Re. the other questions, I think one could find justifications to answer each one with "yes". Yaan (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, everything is fuzzy in this world. ;) Gantuya eng (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan&China

Since the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of Korea get to use South Korea and North Korea, I changed People's Republic of China and Republic of China into China and Republic of Taiwan, so it's less confusing now.--68.98.154.196 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What is People's Republic of Korea?68.145.105.91 18:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant DPRK.--Jerrypp772000 17:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone changed it back w/o explaining, so I decided to make it as confusing as the person wanted it to be.--Jerrypp772000 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the analogy of PRC and ROC as DPRK and ROK is against both history and contemporary international recognition. Using China and Taiwan triggers more confusion. I believe the trade-off might be using current international recognition as the neutral statement, while adding footnotes to let the voices of both PRC and ROC be heard. BTW, it's not me who changed the text :) 24.98.106.92 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC) GTGC

Caption

It says "political-geographical," which does not make sense, as in a political sense, China's goverment is more like Vietnam's and not South Korea or Japan. In anycase, I changed the caption and I see no reason for it to change back without some logical discussion first.

What do you mean? What did you change?--Jerrypp772000 22:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Northeast Asia

"Northeast Asia" currently redirects here, but the article does not mention, let alone explain the term. I think this should be fixed or the redirect should be deleted.

The Korean Wikipedia also has a redirect to "East Asia"[1] and mentions "Northeast Asia" as synonymous with "East Asia" in the latter article's first sentence. The Chinese Wikipedias (zh-yue:東北亞, zh:东北亚), however, clearly distinguish between the two terms.

This is not to suggest we should follow the Korean or the Cantonese Wikipedia, each of which only presents one definition of "Northeast Asia" and fails to mention that there are others. Rather, it should be pointed out that

• neither of the two terms has a universally accepted definition,
• some people do not distinguish between concepts of "East Asia" and of "Northeast Asia", and that
• among this subset of people who do not need two different terms, some may prefer one term over the other, or even discourage using the other.

(Personally, I use both terms to mean different things.) I expect that enough instances from reputable sources could be found for several different usages of both terms that conflict with both the Korean and the Cantonese Wikipedia's definitions.

If you agree, we should decide whether "Northeast Asia" should

• still redirect and its definitions be explained here, giving weight to those who regard the term as meaning more or less the same as "East Asia", or
• get its own article, giving weight to those who make a distinction.

Wikipeditor 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I am not the author of the above unsigned post under the header #East Asia. Wikipeditor 16:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, "Northeast Asia" primarily refers to Korea and Japan, with some interest in Manchuria and the eastern chunk of the Russian Far East. In other words, East Asia minus all of China except for the portions northeast of the Great Wall. For example, the Association for Asian Studies has a "Northeast Asia Council" that funds research and teaching on Japan and Korea, but accepts proposals for near neighbors. I don't know that this information requires a whole page of its own, but if it seems worthwhile to provide a link to the AAS NEAC, I suppose a separate entry is justifiable.Rikyu 22:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Political Entities in East Asia

I see this has been going around and around, and an anonymous user from Taiwan just again removed the clarification of (Taiwan) after the listing of ROC (something they have been doing all over Wikipedia). I have rewritten the list to use as the name of the political entity the title of the page linked to. If "North Korea" is where the user is going, let's leave it at that--if they want to know the official name of the DPRK, they can click the link and find out. On the other hand, I removed the extra link to "China" following the listing for the PRC, because the target page is explicitly about China as a cultural entity, not a political one. If there should be a cultural China link on the page, it should be somewhere other than the list of political entities.Rikyu 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

East Asian people

I don't know that I have access to adequate source material, but to my knowledge it is generally understood that East Asians (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese) collectively comprise a distinct non-human species animal group which I think should be recognized in the article. For instance, in the controversial world of intelligence testing, this group is regularly regarded as distinct unto itself–—the categorical/classificational implications of which I take to be at least as significant as the linguistic aspect. Does anyone have any references to cite to this effect? W.M. O'Quinlan 17:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be "generally understood," but there is no credible evidence to suggest that even "Chinese" constitute a distinct racial group, much less in combination with Koreans and Japanese. Linguistica and paleontological evidence for Korean and Japan suggest multiple waves of migration over a long period time, some from more westerly areas on the mainland (at least Altaic peoples, and, in the case of Korea, possibly even Scythians), and some from insular Southeast Asia (Malayo-Polynesian peoples). Chinese have historical recognized anywhere from 5 ethnicities/races (canonized in the Qing dynasty as Han, Tibetan, Uighur, Mongolian, and Manchurian) to 56 (the official number in present-day PRC), and there has been significant mixing between all of these groups. The Chinese term more or less analogous to the idea of a Chinese "race/ethnicity" is Han, and that is, like Black or White in the United States, as much a cultural and political concept as anything else.

Physical anthropologists suggest that Asian populations can be divided into two broad groups based on features like tooth shape etc. into Sinodonts and Sundadonts; these two terms reference China and Indonesia, respectively, but the gradiant ("boundary," if you like) like squarely athwart south-central China, southernmost Korea, and central Honshu in Japan. So in the broadest physical sense, if you accept the Sinodont-Sundadont distinction as constituting a racial distinction, there are two in the East Asian population.

I personally don't find intelligence testing at all meaningful. If that kind of pseudoscience is acceptable, then why not give the more common pseudoscientific "evidence" for unique East Asian races found over there: blood types.

My advice is don't muck up this entry with racial mumbo-jumbo.Rikyu 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the issue of intelligence is pertinent to this article, I was only using the heated context of race and intelligence research (to which a consistent/approximately coherent definition of race is germane) to see how useful it is to make "racial" distinctions between Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese on the one hand, and, for instance, Thai, Laotian, and Vietnamese peoples on the other. In other words, it has been important (indeed central) to race and intelligence measurement to establish as close to a meaningful definition of a racial group as possible; insofar as such a definition has been established, what seems to be the case is that there are meaningful divisions between the population that includes the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese and the Southeastern Asian populations.

So I am just saying that I am familiar with this kind of distinction on the basis of my familiarity with the race and intelligence controversy, but I haven't heard of scholars distinguishing between the East Asians and the Southeast Asians in other contexts.

So I guess my question is ultimately this: What is the genetic/linguistic/historical/etc. (in effect, those qualities that comprise the notion of "race") relationship between East Asian peoples (usually understood to be the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese) and the Southeast Asian peoples (e.g. the Vietnamese, Thais, Laotians, Bamar, etc.), as opposed to the relationship between the East Asians and, say, Northern Europeans? My interest in this question has arisen because I remember reading an article by Cavalli-Sforza which suggested that the Southeast Asian peoples are more closely related to the people of the Indian sub-continent, the Europeans, and the Austronesian peoples than they are to the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese (which to me seems odd).

I would also say that while I agree with you that the article should by no means hinge upon the racial aspect of the geographical region in question, I would disagree with the idea that such an aspect is nothing more than mumbo-jumbo, or that it has no relevance to the article whatsoever. Cheers, W.M. O'Quinlan 20:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Your question presumes that there are reifiable boundaries between "East Asian peoples" and "Southeast Asian peoples." Aside from the apparent Sundadont/Sinodont gradiant that some paleontologists recognize, there is no good reason to construct such categories apart from the fact that some people now live in areas labeled "East Asia" and "Southeast Asia." For example, different groups from what is now considered China have moved in and out of Southeast Asia west at least as far as Burma and south well into insular Southeast Asia for thousands of years. Some of these groups have maintained some kind of sense of Chinese-ness (Hakka, Fujianese, Hokkienese), whether self-identified or externally identified, while others (Hmong, Burmans) have magically lost it or appear to have migrated out before their areas were considered "East Asia." Furthermore, if there is no clear singular "race" that unites "East Asian peoples," as I suggest above, then on what basis are we to construct a comparison with "Southeast Asian peoples," which are if anything far more varied? Racial distinctions are fundamentally social-political constructs that are at times justified by appeal to stereotypes constructed through selective recognition of arbitrary features in localized gene pools, and as such are highly subjective, highly contingent upon historical moments, and highly dependent for their coherence on minimal sampling and maximal averaging. Unless you want to make this entry larger than the rest of Wikipedia together, and probably ignite any number of online wars in the process, it's best to keep the focus of this article on geography, political entities, and the analytic notions that inform study of the area.

If you are interested in the complexities here, for a single but well-executed example, take a look at Mark Hudson's Ruins of Identity: Ethnogenesis in the Japanese Islands (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999. He goes through all the linguistic and paleontological evidence regarding the origins of modern Japanese and the relationship with Jomon, Yayoi, Ainu, Korean, and other peoples. This should be more useful for the purpose at hand than Cavalli-Sforza's speculations. Cheers yourself. Rikyu 03:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My question was simply whether or not those boundaries between the said population groups exist in any meaningful way, which you answered (you have my gratitude). If possible, I'd like to hear some other opinions on the matter though, since you disagree that race can be a legitimate category beyond the social aspect of it. W.M. O'Quinlan 19:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of Chinese seem to dispute the recent-out-of-africa theory.Eregli bob (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Easian

What about the term "Easian" which is short for East Asian? The term when used to describe people of East Asia has no racist connection unlike many of the other words that often get used. Asian is often used but is not sufficient in describing the area as Asia is a much larger region with many different racial types. I have seen the use of this word on forums but it hasn't had a mention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2007‎

Never heard of it, except (as you say) as a short form of East Asian, much as Xmas is a short form of Christmas. I've never heard it used with reference to people as some sort of euphemism or, actually, at all. If you have references beyond "often used" or "on forums," please point the rest of us to them.Rikyu 03:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some examples of people that recognise the shortened term. Observe the links

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/

http://www.easia-travel.com/

http://easia.imb.org/video/index.htm

http://tc2tc.mojolingo.xuite.net/m2m-0000/www.easia-adventures.com/

http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/easian/

http://www.library.umass.edu/subject/easian/askeasl/askEASLguides.html

http://www.library.umass.edu/subject/easian/askeasl/JpnILLpract.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokti (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, in every case except Easia Travel, "easia" or "easian" is, as I suggested above, just an abbreviation for "East Asia" or "East Asian"--in fact, "easia" or "easian" appears only in the URL, and nowhere in the pages themselves. The one exception, Easia Travel, is a registered trademark for the travel company, and has nothing to do with the people of East Asia.Rikyu 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mongolian society

I see how (Outer) Mongolia can be considered part of East Asia geographically, but culturally? True, they use chopsticks, at least sometimes. But otherwise? Is their society influenced by Confucianism? Do/did they use Chinese characters? Is pastoral nomadism a typical East Asian way of life? Are there any other societies in East Asia that were heavily formed by Soviet socialism? Yaan (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While I am at it: What about prayer wheels? Common in Japanese, Korean, or (Han-) Chinese societies?Yaan (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Qing dynasty, which ruled Mongolia for several hundred years, was essentially Confucian. Vajrayana Buddhism, the direct predecessor of Mongolian Buddhism, was big in China around 600-900 AD and survives as Shingon in Japan to this very day. Pastoral nomadism is common in northern China. And if North Korea wasn't heavily formed by Soviet socialism (hell, Stalinism), I don't know what is! Jpatokal (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

True, there are ethnic Mongols, Kazakhs, Tajiks etc. living in northern China. That does not make Mongolia (or Kazakhstan or Tajikistan, for that matter) "culturally East Asian". Portugal ruled Macao for several hundred years, but is hardly "culturally Iberian". I don't think North Korea ever had a thorough rejection of "cult of personality", so I'd rather be careful about comparing it with other pro-Soviet states - China, on the other hand, always condemned such revisionist tendencies. But this last comparison seems meaningless anyway - Just because Kim Il Sung (like Mao) got some inspirations from the Soviet Union of the 1940s does not make Mongolia culturally East Asian. Au contraire - when Mao took offense with the Brezhnev doctrine, Mongolia's brand of socialism was all the more Soviet, right up to their late-80s attempts at Glasnost and Perestroika. All kids learnt Russian as foreign language, students were sent to the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary or East Germany, people saw Russian movies, read Russian books, the cities began to look more and more like Russian cities etc. They even put those ribbons on their girl's heads! Yaan (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia is located to the north of central People's Republic of China. If Mongolia is just parts of central Asia, then what central China is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.65.102 (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Inline References

The article currently contains many statements that are not supported by in-line references. Some of these statements appear very speculative and a cursory web searches have not reveal obvious sources that could substantiate these claims. I have now added a relevant template to the top of the article indicating the need for references. The fact template has been carefully added to each statement that seems to require backup - I know this "litters the page", but since the quality of the article is compromised by the lack of sources, this is probably justified. laurens (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan dispute

TAIWAN IS PART OF SOUTHEAST ASIA. NOT EAST ASIA!!!!!

Should Taiwan be included in the list as a country itself, or should it be considered as part of the People's Republic of China? I think it should be listed after Hong Kong and Macau, or at least, put Taiwan in italics and explain why. Kubanik (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In the infobox there is already a footnote after Taiwan explaining it's disputed sovereignty. I have added that same footnote after Taiwan in the list in the article I believe you are referring to (see my edit: [2]). Is this good enough? LonelyMarble (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's much better now. I'm not a Chinese notionalist or anything (I'm not even Chinese.) But I think it is important to make clear that Taiwan is not recognized as a sovereign country by the UN and most countries. Thank you for editing it, I didn't know how to edit it being neutral. Thanks again. Kubanik (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed section

"Some definitions are even broader and include Burma, Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand."

Removed this section. Those nations are geographically and culturally considered "South East Asia," not "East Asia." Even further out can even be considered Oceania & Pacific rim, Intranetusa (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwanese

TAIWAN/TAIWANESE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS " SOUTHEAST ASIA" NOT EAST ASIA!!!!! GEOGRAPHICALLY AND CULTURALLY TAIWANESE/TAIWAN IS CLOSER TO SOUTHEAST ASIA NOT EAST ASIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreapedia1 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Re. some recet reverts, the article previously linked to from the "Taiwanese" entry in the infobox makes it quite clear that Taiwanese is a variant of a dialect of Chinese. Of course we could mention all mayor Chinese dialects with mayor variants in the infobox, but frankly, I don't see the point. One could see a point in adding Formosan languages, but then they do not have terribly many speakers. Yaan (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is weak in that it lists a language family like Chinese (unless you're speaking of Mandarin) along with languages like Japanese, and then calls all of them "languages". Perhaps we could change the info box to use the label "languages and language families" or perhaps we could just say "language families" and make sure we only list families. Readin (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry--I reverted Yaan's deletion without first checking this talk page. I would still prefer to leave things as is until a decision is made about the issue. Personally, I think it's splitting hairs to worry about Chinese being a "language family" and Japanese a "language" (given that some linguists class Okinawan as a separate language from mainland Japanese)--a distinction without a difference in a general-audience encyclopedia.Rikyu (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that many English speakers don't realize that "Chinese" is a language family rather than a language, and given the political considerations, we're not splitting hairs to clarify that we've listed language families, not just languages. We should clarify that some of the listings are families, even more so if as you say Japan is sometimes classified as a language family.

If we are to keep the current "languages" label, we should list "Mandarin Chinese" rather than "Chinese" and we should consider listing other members of the Chinese language family that are important either economically, politically, or based on population that speak it. Cantonese as the language of economically powerful HK (where most don't speak Mandarin) would be listed. And Taiwanese as a subject of politics would be listed. Perhaps others might qualify as well. Readin (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please leave it out until a decision is made about the issue. The version without "Taiwanese" was not biased (since it also mentions "and many others"), but the other version is highly controversial (since it directly implies Taiwanese is not Chinese).--209.90.142.50 (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK by me. I've put my 2 cents in. Rikyu (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just call them "Chinese languages", eg "Chinese Mandarin" and "Chinese Cantonese". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.65.102 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Language families

The current list of languages and language families seems odd. Why is Mongolian included but not Tibetan? What about the Turkish languages of Xinjiang? Mongolian only has about 5.7 million speakers so it is unclear what makes it more important than some of the unlisted languages. With so many members of the Chinese language family, I don't think we can have an exhaustive list of languages. But we might be able to list enough of the language families that all the languages are covered. Readin (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mongolian is an official language on a national level, while Tibetan, Uighur etc. are only official on regional levels. And I think Mongolian can also refer to a whole language group. Yaan (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If the standard for inclusion is association with a nation, then Rikyu was correct to include Taiwan, otherwise we imply that Taiwan is not a country. Association with a nation should not be our standard for inclusion in the list. We're talking about languages, not governments. Readin (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the Taiwanese government itself implies that Taiwan is not a country. Which language are their websites written in? Yaan (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on which party won the most recent election. But regardless of that, it isn't our job to push the POV of the Taiwan government. Readin (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the article about Taiwanese reads as if Taiwanese is not an official language of the Republic of China. Do they have bilingual signs or documents? Yaan (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Taiwanese is the native spoken language of most Taiwanese citizens. I'm not sure what it has for a written form but due to government policies from the Chinese colonial era most people are educated in Mandarin Chinese. I still don't see why you're putting so much emphasis on the government when it comes to listing languages. Readin (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is because of the claim that excluding Taiwanese would lead to certain implications which I just cannot see. Yaan (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If the focus is to be on national languages, then instead of listing "Chinese" you should just list "Mandarin Chinese" as it is the official language of both China and Taiwan. "Chinese" is a language family, not the official language of any country. Readin (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether Chinese is a language family is disputed, so listing "Chinese" under "languages and language families" is fine. In any case however, it's completely POV to state Taiwanese is not a subset of Chinese.--209.90.146.105 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Who disputes whether Chinese is a language family? Readin (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Most Chinese scholars clearly consider Chinese a language with a few "dialects", rather than a family of languages. Of course this notion is not at all uncontroversial, but Wikipedia should not ignore different views, even if it may not be linguistically accurate.--209.90.146.105 (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Maps and Mongolia

There are two maps showing East Asia. One of them claims Mongolia is part of "Geographic East Asia" while the other claims it is not. This is inconsistent. Readin (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is because the underlying definitions are different, I guess. Maybe it would be better to create one map with some "usually/sometimes/seldom included" kind of shading. Yaan (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Taipei a capital city?

In a Chinese opinon, Taiwan is not a country at all!! So Taipei is not a capital city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.49.254.135 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this IP address is yours, Netking cn, who is a totally pro-China (Taiwan, Tibet are parts of China; anti-Dalai Lama, pro-Beijing Olympics torch relay, etc) and has been blocked by a Singaporean-Chinese admin (User:Rifleman 82) for disruptive editing (multiple violations: 3RR, WP:NPA, NPOV and now WP:SOCK) and earned the disappointments from even some Chinese members. Please stop, that is enough. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Taiwan is not a country. However, ROC has been considered as a country, which PRC claimed it had succeeded it in 1949. The government of ROC experienced two sharp drop of international recognitions, one in 1950s, one in 1970s~1980s. The facts is that: ROC and PRC are not two different countries, nor are they exactly the same country. It's confusing, but let it be. ROC has not constitutionally determined any city as its capital, but functionally Taipei is its current capital. A neutral expression might be: the capital of China, claimed by the PRC government, is Beijing; while claimed by the ROC government, is Taipei. The PRC government is currently recognized as the legal government of China by most countries, while the ROC government still obtains by some countries as the legal China government. 24.98.106.92 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)GTGC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.106.92 (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There are at least 4 major points of view that need to be considered regarding Taiwan. There are also many variations of these.

First there are the 3 views of Chinese origin:

• There is the PRC view that the ROC (the government of Taiwan) is a local government that is in a state of rebellion against the rightful central government in Beijing.
• There is the KMT view that the ROC is the rightful government of all of China, and that China is in a state of rebellion.
• There is the view that the ROC and the PRC represent two separate but equal independent governments left over from the Chinese Civil War that are ruling different parts of one country called "China".

And then their is a point of view of many or most Taiwanese people:

• Taiwan is an independent country separate from China and currently governed by a government using the anachronistic formal name "Republic of China".

All need to be considered to achieve NPOV.

As for the question of whether Taipei is a capital city, would it be WP:OR to go there and observe the Presidential Palace, the Legislative Yuan building, and the Judicial Yuan (the highest earthly court with jurisdiction over the land) buildings? Readin (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that even if you think that Taiwan is a country or you think KMT should have won the war (and even if I don't agree, I think you are free to do so,) not even the RoC considers Taipei to be the capital of the RoC, for them the capital is Nanjing and Taipei is just like the "temporary seat of the government." So maybe we should note it as a "special capital" or "provincial capital" as none of the two Chinas sees it as a National Capital. Adrián V.M. (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, the "two Chinas" are not the only POVs. Ask anyone in Taiwan what the capital of their nation is, and they will tell you Taipei. And it's simply a matter of them being wrong. They are on very solid ground in observing that their President lives there, their congress meets there, and their highest earthly court of appeals meets there.

The CIA World Factbook lists capital of the country Taiwan as Taipei and there are certainly many other reliable sources that can be found to say the capital is Taipei.

Indeed, even some ROC literature says that capital was moved or relocated to Taipei (I remember that wording in the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial when I visited it in the early 1990s).

Whether or not the ROC officially considers Taipei a "provisional" (not provincial) capital hardly seems noteworthy. Readin (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Russian "Far East"?

MSN Encarta, both encyclopaedia and dictionary, does not say Russian Far East. Only the names of Siberia(Russia) and Parts of Russia are used.

As the Russian region of Siberia also includes Siberian Federal District and Urals Federal District, the map adopted in the article(see below) is not quite accurate:

Further image editing is needed.219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Further edits

I am formerly 219.73.86.234 (above). I am not going to revert anything ATM, but would like to further state that the definition of Geographical East Asia comes from MSN Encarta (see Reference note 4). And clearly MSN Encarta does not exclude the portions of Sinkiang and Tibet from the list of East Asian countries/region like the editors did, so editors editing the contents/maps, including this 28 July edit, according to this heavy OR is harmful to the wikipedia. Another section of MSN Encarta (see Ref note 9) clearly lists the regions as East Asian:

• China
• Japan
• Korea

• Korea, North
• Korea, South

• Mongolia
• Siberia [Russia]

(Encarta provides no footnote on excluding the two portions.)

Please provide sources ASAP supporting this change or I will revert according to WP:OR and WP:CITE. As the source doesn't exclude Xinjiang, let's not exclude it. As the source doesn't mention Russian Far East, let's not use this name.

I repeat, being serious on wikipedia policies, please edit according to what the source exactly says.

- 219.79.166.153 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe, and this is reflected in the brief discussion in the Mongolia section just before this section, that the different shadings in the map are meant to indicate areas that SOME sources place outside East Asia, or at least place simultaneously in East Asia and another region. For example, Viet Nam is sometimes placed in East Asia, sometimes in Southeast Asia, and sometimes in both. That MS Encarta is the primary cited source upon which the map was based does not thereby trump all of the other sources. Microsoft is not God. The various differences in placement (which, outside Wikipedia, do not really rise to the level of "controversy") are quite well documented elsewhere on the page.

Having said that, I really don't see why the map has to somehow carry every nuance of every difference of opinion. The main point is to tell people, in general, where East Asia is, what countries are placed there. Why not have an outline of the most inclusive definition, and a shaded version of the most restrictive? Rikyu (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

East Asia, to my knowledge, is anything North-East of the Tibetan plateaou, closed off in the North by the Hingan mountain ranges, and of course anything South-West from the Kurile, Japan, Izu Bon'in, Marianas and Philippine undersea trenches (on the Pacific plate). It's more of a geographical area instead of political or ethnic and should be treated as such 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

Editors have long cited Encarta Dict/Encyclopedia affirming the Geographical definition of East Asia, so all the maps for this article should also follow the same definition, or it would be nothing but double standards. 219.79.166.153 (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As an accountable editor I'd like to insist that other sources classifiing China's Far-west as "Central Asian" doens't necessarily mean the area is not part of East Asia. By the way, I added some citations for affirming the Chinese far west as geographically East Asian, including that of NGS.

No offense, but we need quality editorship instead of goof-ups. And I notice that someone pushed heavy POV altering the maps' content with no explanation, no discussion and no talk-page consensus.[3][4]. 219.79.166.153 (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Maps and Provinces in China

I would like to assume that the definition of East Asia is based on culture, residents, geographic features, and history. Historically and currently, the principle that China defines the boundaries of its provinces is that the culture backgrounds, the ethical group habitats, and geographically natural boundaries (e.g., rivers, ridges) are "broken". The purpose is to maintain a subtle balance among those provinces, and to avoid separation. That is, the boundaries of provinces are significantly different from natural boundaries.

Therefore, I would like to suggest to re-draw the map either according to the geographic boundaries or following the historical, ethical, or current boundaries.

Another issue is that, the composition of local residents and the local culture features have been keeping changing in history. A good sample is the Xinjiang province in China -- it was occupied by Han people, Uyghur people, Mongolians, and other ethical groups in the history. The culture of Uyghur people also changed significantly in history, mainly due to their conversion to Islam. Currently, the northern Xinjiang province, with hush environments, hosts mainly Han ethic group residents, while the southern Xinjiang, where the climate is much milder, is dominated by Uyghur ethic group Chinese. Should the northern Xinjiang be drawn as the East Asia region or not? ... it sounds weird.

I would like to suggest to plot a cartoon that reflects the historical changes, and use the current facts (geographical boundaries, cultures, and compositions of local residents) to make the term as a semi-contemporary one.

24.98.106.92 (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC) GTGC

Altaic

Altaic is a language family, yet it is listed as "Altaic people". --Platinum inc (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Guam and Marianna Islands

They are in the East Asian Football Federation and East Asian Games. Are they apart of East Asia? --KRajaratnam1 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rehauling Uses of the term East Asia

This section is a mess. I am reorganizing this section. I am intending on turning the lists in this section into prose. A prose section would be much better than a list Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

15 percent bigger than the area of Europe.

...Seriously? What's the point of that? Should we compare that area to other continents too? The comparison with Europe is unnecessary, stupid at core, and redundant at best.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Orwell

Orwell's very influential book features Eastasia as one of the three great superstates that come to dominate the planet. e.g. "We've always been at war with Eastasia". AThousandYoung (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)