Talk:Sinosphere/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

NPOV

I've tagged this because the inclusion of Korea, Vietnam and Japan in any concept of Greater China is completely nonsensical. If the article means to say that those countries have been influenced by China, then fine, though no doubt others have as well. But that influence doesn't make them part of China any more than Taiwan is part of some "Japanese world" because anime is popular there, or Turkey is part of the "Italian world" for using the Latin script. No, cultural exchange is a function of neighbouring states, and the fact that neighbours exchange culture does turn them into the same country. Pruned of its Chinese nationalist garbage, this article may be worthwhile, so I'm not nominating it for deletion. Meanwhile, "disputed". --Zaxios 06:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In the past Korea and Vietnam were paying tributes to imperial China, like suzerainty. The relations between Japan and old China is more complicated. — Instantnood 09:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant. China itself was under Mongol rule, historically, but no one is claiming it as part of a "Mongol world" now. --Zaxios 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Former British and Portuguese colonies like HongKong and Macau should be included in the Angoloshpere and Portuguesphere instead, because the first official lanuage in these colonies had been English and portugeses for centuries. Probably they are still their first official language now. Migye 04:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This article might be redundant. See East Asia, it explains everything that is in this article but more clearly. The only thing worth salvaging might be the map. --Countakeshi 02:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, the guy just translated this from a French article. I don't know if the "Chinese world" is a more common concept in France than it is here (canada). I've never heard of it before... TastyCakes 05:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Having spent the majority of the past two decades in East Asia I'd say this article is far from putting forward a point of view. It's rarely disputed that Vietnam and Korea were under heavy Chinese influences, until the idea of sovereignty was introduced to this corner of the world, and they were established as sovereign states. "Sovereignty" and "sovereign state" are relatively rather new to East Asia, comparing with its long history. — Instantnood 07:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sovereign states are relatively new to the world, full stop. But so what? The article doesn't seem to be referring to any historical concept of a "Chinese world" -- it's talking about the present, and it even uses the modern borders of those newfangled sovereign states in its map. --Zaxios 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Culturally speaking those influences, e.g., Confucianism in Korea, still exist. — Instantnood 18:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Confucianism exists everywhere. In terms of other Cultures, Korean culture is no where Chinese related. Migye 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is untrue. Korean culture is full of stories from China, such as the Romance of the Three Kingdoms and the Journey to the West. To cite a more modern example, Louis Cha's stories are popular in Korea as well. --Kjoonlee 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

These stories are well known throughout Asia and the world. Does it mean the all Asia is Sinoshpere? As I argued before culture influence is everywhere and is not unilateral. There are things in China influenced by Korean, Japanese, Mogolian and Vietnam cultures. Do you think that makes China part of Koreansphere or Japanese sphere? Migye 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They were better known in Asia before they became known to the rest of the world. Those earlier places are likely to be in the 漢字文化圈. --Kjoonlee 17:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Asia is more Sinoshpere than the US does. That's nonsense. Migye 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I think what I said makes perfect sense. --Kjoonlee 17:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and China would now be part of the 韓流文化圈, if you get what I mean. --Kjoonlee 17:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to be more clear :

• ¨Chinese world¨, I translated it from ¨fr:Monde chinois¨ which is a common expression use in France about the area, its history, culture religions, etc, and nothing more.
• that have no link with the notion of ¨great china¨, and, of course, ¨this influence doesn't not make them part of China¨.

that just an expression which describ an cultural area, your help is welcome to improve my former ¨redaction¨ and to make this article more neutral :] Yug (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I understand now, Yug, but the phrase is foreign to English and doesn't deserve an article in the English-language Wikipedia. In any event, the best this article can be is redundant to East Asia and the articles on the Chinese disambiguation page. I'll wait for arguments to the contrary and, if there are none, mark this for deletion. --Zaxios 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Language should not be a barrier to human knowledge. — Instantnood 18:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese World or Chinese community ?

This new version from the 8 january seem (for me) be more like the "Chinese community" (oversea chinese). Moreover, Japan, Korea and Vietnam don't are (for me) in the chinese world, but just have strongh links and influences. What do you think ? Someone have an official definition ? Yug

The closest equivalent terms are the Sinosphere/Chinese character cultural sphere/Chinese cultural sphere/East Asian cultural sphere. On comments below I mentioned I modified the article on 13 April 2006 to include what I have in mind for a draft article Sinosphere. Would it be a better idea to rename this article as Sinosphere? (Since we already have the Anglosphere defined on a very similar basis as a grouping/network of countries, but with English as working language and with historic British heritage. --JNZ 06:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to have the move reverted for the time being. It looks like a Wikipedia neologism. There doesn't seem to be any source using the word sinosphere for this meaning. — Instantnood 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A number of English-speaking people seem to use Sinosphere and what they mean is the "Chinese character cultural sphere" widely used in Chinese language circles. Bennett does point to a network commonwealth of Chinese around the world when he mentions Sinosphere in his book The Anglosphere Challenge. (Source: http://www.anglospherechallenge.com/ch4samp.html ) It is up to you to decide if calling this Sinosphere is appropriate.--JNZ 03:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any people other than Bennett using " Sinosphere "? Would it be a word he's picked just for the purpose to compare Anglosphere with other -spheres? — Instantnood 19:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just call it the "New Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" and be done with it?

because the Japaneses absurd the term during WWII and is avoided like Nazi. also it is no a co-op, the countries highlighted are known to have absorb/use chinese culture/teaching and based their administration on those of Chinese principles, at least for a period. today, korean and japanese text still use some chinese word. Akinkhoo 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A better name

This article deserves to stand by itself, but I think it is more appropriate to retitle it "Chinese cultural world" to better satisfy NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.204.87 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Did. Yug — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.244.80.175 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New Additions 13 April 2006

I expanded my draft article on the Sinosphere into this stub since most of what I have essentially describes the same thing (Greater Chinese cultural sphere or Sinosphere). If anyone thinks it is inappropriate, feel free to delete it.

Also since we have the term Anglosphere defined in a similar fashion but describing nations that had English language and cultural influences, and since it has become common usage, would it be more feasible to rename this article as Sinosphere to unify usage of cultural groupings of nations?

--JNZ 06:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Tibet

"grouping of countries and regions that are currently inhabited with a significant number of people of Chinese descents or historically under Chinese cultural influence." Despite the policy of huge replacements of Tibetan populations in Tibet by Chinese population, does Tibet qualify yet? Tibetan culture, language etc. have not yet been fully destroyed. deeptrivia (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

More than one culture can exist in an area, especially if each is more or less carried by (a) different ethnic group(s). In this case, if Tibetan culture has survived until now in Tibet, that doesn't mean there can't at the same time be the Chinese culture brought to the capital by “a significant number of” Hàn immigrants. Wikipeditor 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This point is true, but.... the entire concept of the "Sinosphere" means influence of Chinese culture which means Chinese characters, Chinese literature, Chinese medicine, Chinese religion/cosmology, etc. Perhaps the real question is a "tipping point". Is this based only on population? If so, you could argue that statisicaly Tibetans still outnumber Han Chinese. Is it an historic question? Prior to 1950, China/Chinese cultural influence simply did not exist anywhere besides the building of an ambassador or amban office. Is it a question of political control? If you go to the African country of Zambia, Chinese is everywhere. Immigrant laborers have practically taken over parts of this place, and you see Chinese writing all over. China seems to practically own parts of this place. But it's true that Tibet was militarily invaded and annexed by China since the 1950s and converted it into a pseudo-province. However, if Germany had a huge region that was fundamentally different than anything considered "German", would you color it exactly the same as Germany on a map of a "Germanosphere"? Is Quebec part of an "Anglosphere" because it's part of Canada, or would you give it a different color as part of a "Francosphere"? If you weigh all these considerations with a rational and hopefully dispassionate mind, it seems difficult to justify putting Tibet into any map of a "Sinosphere". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.100.32 (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Overseas Chinese

In the article there is a phrase:"and its overseas Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau..." Are Chinese people in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan considered as oversea Chinese? There is no "sea" between Macau and China as I know. -Oscar24 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.192.16 (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

from google earth, i can see a man-made canal between mainland and Macau. so i guess they fix that problem! =P Akinkhoo 17:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sinosphere?

I don't think there is such kind of thing as Sinoshpere. Nobody thinks that Koreans, Japanese, Mongols and Vietnese speak Chienese language. It is more appropriate to include countris where Chinese is considered an official language as Sinoshpere. There is no way Korea, Japan, Mongol and Vietnan are Sinosphere. Someone is really kidding me. Migye 17:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? Sinosphere is defined as those regions that were, historically or otherwise, culturally influenced by Chinese civilisation. I didn't notice the article claiming that Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese speak Chinese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The sphere thing is laguage related. Anglosphere is a group of English speaking coutries. If you want to fabriacte a sinosphere accordingly, please choose Chinese speaking countries. Korean, Japanese, Mogolian and Vietnese culture, language are totally different from those of the Chiense. The wording of this article is totally ridiculous. Migye 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about Anglosphere. The article does not define Sinosphere as regions that speak Chinese. It's about regions that were culturally influenced by the Chinese civilisation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to privide sources. Otherwise it is original work. The influence is mutual. We all influence others and others also influence back. Migye 19:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just do a simple search on how the word is used. They all refer to cultural influence.[1][2][3]. Hey, and I absolutely agree that influence is mutual. Nothing in the article have stated otherwise. A subject about Chinese cultural influence does not automatically mean that the Chinese civilisation has not also been influenced by other cultures. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So what? Any source say that Korea, Japan, Mogolia, Vietnan are part of sinosphere? There ain't even significant Chiense population in these countries. Not to mention sphere. Migye 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't actually click on those links I just provided, didn't you? Here are a couple more[4][5]. And also, I don't know how many times I have to mention this, but Sinosphere is defined as those regions that are culturally influenced by the Chinese civilisation. Korea, Japan, and Vietnam were all culturally influenced by the Chinese civilisation, this is a commonly accepted fact. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Only one of your source includes these countries as sinosphere, but it was written by a Chinese nobody. It doesn't provide any credit here. These countries were only influenced by Chinese culture in the history. Nobody thinks their cultures now are Chinese centered. There are Chinese characters in Japanese language and there used to be Chinese characters in Korean and Vietnese language, but these Chinese characters convey different meaning. Koreans have already completely abandoned Chinese characters in their language long time ago. As for Mongols, they speak totally different language. It is ridiculous to include Mongolia in Sinoshpere. On the contrary, China should be part of Mogosphere instead. Migye 03:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody thinks Korea's culture is China-centered, but Korea is part of the Sinosphere, nonetheless. Korea has not completely abandoned Hanja. --Kjoonlee 17:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"but these Chinese characters convey different meaning."

i haven't hear of any; in some cases, they are used differently to fit into their existing vocabulary but they still descript similar things. as a chinese, i can read those text use by japanese with some sense. in fact, Singapore's 1st prime minister who was English educated once said in an interview; he learn Chinese just to read the Japaneses document during the occupation. Akinkhoo 17:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Map

Sinoshpere should include those countries where there is significant Chiense population. Like Greater China, Signpore, Malaysia. Countries like Korean, Japan Mogolia and Vietnan where Chinese population is only a small fraction of the population are nowhere close to this sphere. The current map should be removed. These countries are not the center of this article anyway. Migye 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is no furher disagreement, I'll have the map removed. Migye 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Again, Sinosphere is defined by cultural influence. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. CJKV (the chopstick countries) are all part of the 漢字文化圈. Arguing that sinosphere should mean something else seems to be a mix of POV pushing and prescriptivism gone awry. --Kjoonlee 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost all Asians use chopsticks. It is really nothings. Germans, French use forks as Americans and British do. But that can't make them Angolosphere. Migye 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not change the subject. :( --Kjoonlee 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said on my Talk page, please provide sources if you want to argue that Sinosphere specifically is not defined by cultural influence at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out many times, even if it is culture based, it is still an inappropriate map because compared with Singpore, Malaysia, countries in the map are at the far-fetched edge of this thing. They are not the ones to highlight in the article. Migye 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources, please. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're ridiculous. What does it have to do with sources. Migye 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:No original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong, I'm realy tired of these nonsense of yours. How come removing a picuture is original work? Migye 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change the subject. It looks like you're making non sequitur mistakes as well. :( --Kjoonlee 17:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As per the article and the source, "Bennett envisages the Sinosphere as consisting of Greater China, and to some extent, its overseas Chinese population in countries like Singapore. One of the main unifying links is based the Chinese language". If someone wants to put a map, it should be a Greater China map instead. Nobody considers Korean, Japan, Mogolia and Vietnam as Greater China. Migye 18:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember these links? I posted them in the last section of this Talk page.[6][7][8][9][10] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of these websites are nothing not authoritative. Anyone can set up a website and put some nonsense there. The thing here is that the map is not what the article is saying. That makes it irrelevant and be removed. Migye 18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, read the second paragraph of the article. --Kjoonlee 18:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mongolia doesn't meet any standards to be part of Sinosphere. This article also doesn't include Mongolia as part of Sinosphere. The map is simply wrong. If there is no disagreement, I'll have the map removed. Migye 15:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the proper thing would be to come up with a new map that satisfies everyone. --Kjoonlee 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So you admit the map is wrong. What is the point keeping the wrong map? Migye 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I know nothing about the map. But you don't seem to have a consensus on its deletion. --Kjoonlee 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then your opinion doesn't have any merit here. It is pretty obvious, Mongolia is not even mentioned in this article. Migye 16:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I say it should mention Mongolia. Mongolian writing was influenced by Hanzi, AFAIK. --Kjoonlee 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

At least one of the sources I provided right here in this Talk page already included Mongolia as a part of Sinosphere. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Mongols have never borrowed any Chinese characters. Also HongQiGong, you think what a stupid student put on his personal website is a creditable source? All other sources used here exclude Mongolia from Sinoshpere. Migye 15:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing "writing system" with "characters", it seems. --Kjoonlee 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I want to provide sources that back the notion that Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Mongolia are not part of Sinosphere. The source is "James C. Bennett" who is the center of this article. He excludes all these coutries from Sinosphere. This article itself is in dispute, because there is no agreement on which countries are part of Sinoshpere. In such circumstance, adding a map favoring only one of the opinions is biased. If there is no further diagreements, I'll have the map removed. Migye 15:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Objection. You shouldn't just ignore other people; you should go ahead when you have consensus. You don't seem to have any. --Kjoonlee 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you diagree, you need to provide reasons. Otherwise, it will have no merits to other editors. Migye 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think plenty of reasons have been provided, actually. For the record, I disagree with you as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You two haven't provide any reasons for Mongolia, except a University student's personal website. Migye 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Mongol Empire was China, during/after the reign of Genghis Khan. Guess what script they used for diplomacy. --Kjoonlee 17:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mongols didn't abondon their language as Manchu did. There is no similarity between Mongolian and Chinese languages. Migye 18:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything about that. They were influenced by Chinese writing, hence they are included in the Sinosphere. --Kjoonlee 18:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, all you've done is disregard my source. Do you have a source that claim specifically that Mongolia is not a part of Sinosphere? Otherwise, you've got nothing to contradict our claim. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this dispute wouldn't happen if we can present some sources showing what the Sinosphere does include. I believe there are valid problems to the map. If the map is based on Chinese cultural influence, as in the western reckoning of Sinosphere, then it should include parts of Southeast Asia with a large Chinese diaspora. And if the map is based on the concept of the "Chinese character cultural sphere" used in Japan and China, then Japan should be dark green (as it uses characters officially), while Vietnam and Mongolia should be excluded (as they doesn't use characters). Currently, the map isn't accurate for either the western or eastern definitions.--Yuje 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've actually provided some sources already in this same section of the Talk page - [11][12][13][14][15]. However, I don't think Migye here will be satisfied until that map and the List of tributaries of Imperial China are delinked from all articles. He had been delinking them from other articles. Granted, I agree they don't need to be in a lot of the articles he delinked them from, but I think this is one article that should include them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong, I personally think you have a screw loose. And be aware who the heck you are. Please stop repeated citing sources that don't deal with Mongolia and stop talking nonsense. Migye 16:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. I personally think I don't care what you think of me. Please cite some sources that directly contradict my sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be over now, but in case anyone cares: The traditional Mongolian script was borrowed from the Uighurs (not Han Chinese), who had their script from the Sogdians, whose script was ulimately derived from Phoenician. The alphabet now used in Mongolia is the cyrillic one, again ultimately derived from Phoenician, not Chinese.

The Mongols did also use other scripts like Phagspa or a transliteration with Chinese Characters at some time during their empire, but these don't seem to have had any lasting influence. Anyway, if someone could explain what exactly the rationale is for considering Mongolia part of the Sinosphere (past colonial relationship ?), I' d be most grateful. Yaan 14:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Irelevant Links

These links : List of tributaries of Imperial China, Suzerainty, Tributary state are about military matters. I'll suggest have them removed. Migye 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Suzerainty-tributary relationship has led to much cultural exchanges between China and its historic tributary states. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Culture exchange would occured better without these military matters. These are irrelevant or inappropriate links that should be removed. Migye 17:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The point remains that cultural exchange did happen with suzerainty-tributary relationships. Besides, those links only serve as suggested reading for readers interested in the subject. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, culture exchange happens all the time. You can't list all the things here. Migye 18:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course we can. If you can think of any other articles that are relevant to cultural exchanges or Chinese cultural influence, I encourage you to include them in the See also section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I find your arguement simply silly. But, as a compromise, I'll replace the above links with links to History of China or manybe history of other countries. Migye 18:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How is my argument "silly"? How many times must I point out that suzerainty-tributary relationships yielded a lot of cultural exchange? And again, I disagree with taking out the current links. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Because culture exchanges occurred throughout the history and the above linked articles talk nothing about culture exchange between China and other countries. They shouldn't be here first place. Migye 18:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They are the causes of a lot of cultural exchange, and like I said, the See also section only acts as suggested reading. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to provide links that deals with culture exchanges among these countries not otherwise. Migye 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See the links I already provided in the last section, and the section before that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't think you are the one who lays the rule here. Those links provide nothing about the cause of culture exchanges. They are irrelevant and should be removed or replaced. Migye 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, suzerainty-tributary relationships were the reason for a lot of cultural exchanges[16]. I don't really feel like repeating myself anymore, but I feel those links need to be in the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the countries mentioned in these links are not listed as part of Sinoshpere here and once again, these articles don't have any information about culture exchange what so ever. Migye 14:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, some of their sources do. And like I've said again and again, those are just to act as "suggested reading", and suzerainty-tributary relations have been the cause for a lot of cultural exchange. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all you need to point out which part of which above articles is talking about culture matters. If you think the sources used in these articles are useful, you need to add these sources to this article instead. Second of all, as I just said most of the countries discussed in these articles are not listed as part of Sinosphere in this article here. Putting these irrelevant links is misleading. If you continue to stop me from changing this article to a proper presentation manner, I'll consider it vandalism. Migye 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that they're irrelevant. I think those links are very relevant. And those links do not actually have to talk about cultural exchanges. Like I keep saying, they're only to act as "suggested reading". And also like I keep on repeating again and again, suzerainty-tributary relations were the cause for a lot of cultural exchanges. That alone makes them relevant links. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In the NPOV section of this talk page. Concensus was reached that these links are irrelevant. These are your POVs. Migye 03:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that they are irrelevant, so I guess we don't have concensus anymore. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one that diagrees here. It doesn't matter to me. If you think suzerainty-tributary relation is the cause of culture exchange, why are not all the countries that had -tributary relationship with China part of Sinoshpere? I'll wait for a while to see if other editors have any opinions. Otherwise, your opinion will be disregarded. Migye 15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not nice. You should focus on building consensus. :( --Kjoonlee 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is nice here. If HongQingGong's logic is right, then the all Asia should be Sinosphere. Anyway his arguement is nonsense to me and there are other editors consider these links irrelevant. Migye 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your argument doesn't make any sense at all and you seem to refuse to take simple logic into account. Anyway, not all of Asia is within Sinosphere. Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia (or the Malacca Straits area), etc, are not usually considered to be within Sinosphere. I've seen your contrib history, you seem to only want to remove List of tributaries of Imperial China and the picture in question from a whole bunch of articles. I'm kind of doubting if your concern is really about this article specifically, or if you just want to remove links to the article and the picture throughout WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat one more time, there are authoritative souces that exclude Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Mongolia are not part of Sinosphere. This include "James C. Bennett", the center of this article. If there is no further diagreements, I'll have these non-culture related links removed. Migye 15:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because he didn't mention them doesn't mean he excluded them. That's a logical fallacy. Don't remove links without consensus, if people disagree with you. --Kjoonlee 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And where exactly does James Bennet say that these countries are not in Sinosphere? Even then, there are other sources that contradict that. NPOV would mean we include different opinions, and not exclude those we personally do not like. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

These links are disrespects of other countries. As if these countries are part of this so called Sinoshpere because they were once the tributaries of the imperial China. Such kind of practice shouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia. Migye 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those links are disrespectful. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Notified on the Incidents Noticeboard

This is just a note to let everyone know that Migye has posted a notice on the incidents noticeboard about this article. To any editors responding to the claim that was posted there, my response is this - sources have been provided to justify the current state of the article, while Migye has not provided countering evidence, and has only made assertions. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

JUBALCAIN 09:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC) put hand up for adjudication...(probally silly of me)

Neologism?

I have no problems whatsoever with the content of the article, and have no interests in starting a new debate on whether or not the concept is accurate or which countries should be included, etc. But, having read all the above comments, I remain unconvinced that "Sinosphere" is a commonly used term in scholarship (or in everyday discussion), that it is not a neologism, and that it is a better term than "Sinocentric world order", "Chinese cultural sphere" or the like. Can anyone provide some examples of scholarly works that use this term? (Not a single outlying example like Bennett, mentioned above, but a good number of sources) Thank you. LordAmeth 12:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick Google search actually found a recently published book that used the word in the title, but it's a book about China's role in Africa[17]. The title is "The New Sinosphere" - that suggests an academic place for an "old" Sinosphere to begin with. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just search at Google Scholar and you get loads of results on the Sinosphere. (You have to dig a little because there's a journal called Sinosphere, but there are still a lot of results after that.) --Kjoonlee 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for that. LordAmeth 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rediculously inaccurate character map

Neither Mongolia nor Inner Mongolia use an Indic-derived script. Mongolia uses Cyrillic, while the classical Mongolian alphabet still used in Inner Mongolia isn't derived from an Indic script. Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Phillipines all use Latin-based scripts for their languages, Brunei uses Arabic script. In Xinjiang, Uyghur is written either with Latin or Arabic script. In Korea and Japan, Chinese script is used in conjunction with native script, while in Vietnam characters are not used at all, but replaced with Latin alphabet. In other words, the map is wrong for more than half the countries depicted, and wrong for most of East Asia and Southeast Asia. --Yuje 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I believe the point may have been to indicate cultural influences, not just writing systems. Many parts of Mongolia and Western China are more influenced by Persia and Central Asian cultures than, say, Eastern China, Japan, or Korea. ... Vietnamese history and culture is very heavily influenced by Chinese culture, and only stopped using the Chinese writing system within the last few centuries; Korea, I've heard rumor, is phasing out Hanzi, but they're only doing so now. So the general cultural influence is very much there, if not fully obvious in the written language. (Besides, Vietnamese language is extremely heavily influenced by Chinese, even if it's no longer written in the same system.) LordAmeth 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If the Mongolian part would be blue and the caption explain that the whole map is related to traditional usage and blue means ultimately derived from something like phoenician or syriac or sogdian alphabets, it might actually be useful (the northern part, anyway). As it is now, it's complete nonsense.Yaan 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with alphabets and everything to do with a wider definition of cultural influence. See character: 3. A distinguishing feature; characteristic; A complex of mental and ethical traits marking a person or a group. LordAmeth 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If the map is supposed to be defining cultural spheres, then why are all the green countries clumped together? Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan are in the Islamosphere, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka are all Theravada Buddhist countries, India and Nepal are Hindu, while Bhutan, Tibet, and Mongolia are part of the Lamaism sect of Buddhism. Phillpines is Catholic and fall outside any of these cultural groupings. Oh, and the Japanese writing on the map explicitly mentions that they map is supposed to be based on historical writing script, so in the case of Mongolia and in the case of many of the Muslim countries (which historically used Arabic), it would be wrong.--Yuje 07:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. I should have read that first. Sorry. LordAmeth 10:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this map is less about the current situation but is averaged out over history. Latin script in Indonesia, Chinese script in Tibet etc. are relatively modern phenomena. deeptrivia (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop using the Vietnamese reading of the characters

Vietnamese does not have a term for this concept. The reading of the Chinese characters for this concept is gibberish in modern Vietnamese. DHN 07:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Vietnamese used Chinese characters in history. Now they have not used, but their language have so many wordage are derived from Chinese.Đại Nam Việt (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what's what in modern Vietnamese, the term is present within the Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary. I am not aware of any such rule that only common phrases can only be considered to "make sense", and not rarer ones - you may as well delete the articles on verisimilitude, Tetrahydrocannibinol and perestroika under your argument. You cannot argue that the words "do not exist" in Vietnamese simply because usage is uncommon in everyday literature. (Note that this is a direct Vietnamese Quoc Ngu reading of the Han tu/Chinese characters.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

我很支持直接使用漢越詞「Hán tự văn hoá khuyên」，但似乎很難找出它的資料來源，如果有人能提供，還請及時告知。謝謝。--Betoseha (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Translation: "I stand by the use of the Sino-Viet phrase 'Hán tự văn hoá khuyên', however, it is seemingly difficult to obtain an information source for its origin. If anyone is capable of helping, please contact me ASAP. Thanks." Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

我建议把 “Hán tự văn hóa khuyên" 的汉字加上来，因为“Hán tự văn hóa khuyên"是 “汉字文化圈” 的拉丁化样式，所以应该使用汉字解释，跟韩语和日语一样Đại Nam Việt (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This term is essentially an invention of Wikipedia. Please cite a Vietnamese-language source that uses this term, otherwise this is original research. DHN (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. A reading is a reading, a dictionary definition is a dictionary definition, they cannot be "invented". This does not constitute WP:OR. I mean, how can I prove that the reading of 中国 in Hanyu Pinyin is "Zhong guo"? How can I prove that 四川腾中重工机械有限公司 is "Sìchuān Téngzhōng Zhòng Gōngjīxiè Yǒuxiàn Gōngsī"? There are no specific sources or academic documents which specifically make a note on it. Does it count as WP:OR? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As this article indicated, the term "Sinosphere" is coined late in the 20th century, when Chinese has as much relevance in Vietnamese as Latin in English. Imposing the Sino-Vietnamese reading of the Chinese characters for this modern term seems ridiculous to me. As I noted, please cite any Vietnamese usage of this term, otherwise it is Chinese and has no relevance to Vietnamese. You can prove that such a thing as "四川腾中重工机械有限公司" exists by citing various published sources that refer to it; similarly, you can prove that "Hán tự văn hóa khuyên" exists by showing someone actually using that term. I'm not claiming that this term is rare, I'm claiming that it is nonexistent. DHN (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work Betoseha in finding that reference. It now seems that 區域文化𡨸漢 is the native Vietnamese term, and 漢字文化圈 is the Sintic term where Hán tự văn hoá khuyên is the Quoc Ngu reading. Now that we've established that 區域文化𡨸漢 is used to describe the concept in Vietnamese, I think we should call this finished. Although the Sintic term is scarcely used in Vietnamese texts, it would be good to provide a mention of the reading of the Han Tu, and it wouldn't be WP:OR since readings are readily obtainable from dictionaries, including Wiktionary. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your discussion continued in 2008

I haven't seen any significant discussion for this article in months, so has interest disappeared? The notion of "Sinosphere" fits in as a good analog to "Anglosphere," so I can see how an anglophone would think of it as a good concept and article title. Well, its supposed Chinese name 漢字文化圏 translates to "Chinese character cultural zone," which is not the same as what the name Sinosphere would lead you to think, especially if you consider it an analog to Anglosphere. In fact, the literate world that uses the Latin alphabet would be the exact counterpart to 漢字文化圏. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.119.118 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

South Korea "contested"?

I'm a bit dubious of anglosphere and sinosphere as useful terms, but ignoring that, it appears to me that South Korea would be a good candidate for inclusion into the "contested" paragraph under the "Current Developments" section. They clearly are influenced by both US and China, primary influences of each "sphere". -- KarlHallowell (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is riduculous to not include South Korea as contested, especially when compared to Singapore and Hong Kong where most of their population IS Chinese. Is not South Korea's governmental, legal and business practices more akin to English-speaking countries than China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.214.189 (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe "Sinosphere" as canvassed in this article is primarily about language and culture. If drinking coke and playing baseball fits one into the Americosphere, then the whole world fits into it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is not a "sphere of influence" in a political sense, but a cultural sense. I think the inclusion of Taiwan and Singapore (not allies of the PRC but obviously under the influence of Chinese culture) demonstrates this. Also, what happened to the map that was in here? TastyCakes (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous 139.95.251.9

You are waging an edit war. Can you prove that Tibet isn't Indospheric and Turkic languages aren't spoken in Xinjian? Login first and edit properly. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia

Wouldn't Mongolia qualify? Zazaban (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A Letter dated 1266, from Kublai Khan of Mongol Empire to the King of Japan was written in Classical Chinese. Now stored in Todai-ji, Nara, Japan.

Historically speaking, Mongolia had a written and spoken language completely unrelated to Chinese, however, used Classical Chinese as a lingua franca for communication between states (as evident with Kublai Khan's letter to the "King of Japan"), as with many other Central/Northeastern Asian states, such as the Jurchens (where communications with Korea were all written in Chinese), pre-Qing Manchus, etc. The Mongols, Manchus, Jurchens, etc. all had their own native written scripts, however accepted that Chinese was the official medium to which foreign relations was written (or even spoken) with. These peoples never used Chinese to communicate with each other (instead using their native tongues and scripts, a la Mongol script, Manchu script...), but with other states. Now, whether we should include these states depends on your, our and officially recognised definitions of Sinosphere - is it countries which use Chinese characters in it's native language, or countries which embraced Classical Chinese as a means of official communication? I myself am rather confused of this issue. Comments please. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The Chinese Wikipedia seems to follow the course of including Mongolia, Outer Manchuria, the rest of French Indochina, and a large landmass to the West. But then again, Chinese Wikipedia is rather POVed. I don't think that, from a cultural perspective, Mongolia was very "Sinified" in comparison to, say, Japan. There doesn't seem to be strong links found in areas such as architecture, art, etc. Perhaps the Chinese Wikipedia considered the outer extent of the Qing Dynasty to be part of the Sinosphere... -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Layout of a 1908 Chinese edition of The Secret History of the Mongols. Mongolian text in Chinese transcription, with a glossary on the right of each row

Another comment: (sorry if I seem to be getting a bit verbose, just did a bit of browsing and found something) I've just noticed that for quite some time, the Mongolian language was often transcribed into Chinese characters (see Mongolian writing systems#Foreign scripts). For example, the only surviving copies of the earliest known piece of Mongol literature, The Secret History of the Mongols, is written in the Mongolian language but exclusively in Chinese characters, in a phonetic manner. The contents of the work (e.g. "忙豁侖紐察 脫[卜]察安") do not make sense in the Chinese language, as they are the transcribed readings in Mongolian. This may also be taken into account when regarding the significance of the Chinese writing system at the time. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Judging from all this, I'd say it would make sense to include it in the map. There's also the Yuan Dynasty in there. Zazaban (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WOW!

This is BULLSHIT and were I Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese I'd be highly offended. How the hell can you highlight the rest of those countries with China and call it the "Sinosphere?" No matter what influence China may ever have had on the countries surrounding, by A.D. 2010 there's plenty of cultural individuality to distinguish one from the other and one from China. To still claim they are part of some "Sinosphere" is unjust and not the least bit biased. I can't believe this is a real article and so many are defending it... Jersey John (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, nobody is saying that Japan and Korea are China, as you have stated above. Second of all, the term is used by academics in academic documents, whilst your personal, original interpretation is not documented as a proper source. Remember that Wikipedia is a place of information based on sources, and not original research. Thirdly, if you actually read carefully, the article does not necessarily advocate the Sinosphere. There are reasons given for and against the term, that are documented by academics. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to read what I posted again. You were wrong from the very beginning. I never claimed any of those countries are part of China. I said they do not justifiably belong in a "Sinosphere" anymore. Sorry if this insults your nationalism. Jersey John (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I interpret your above comment as a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK against myself. Does the article state in any way that the concept has to entirely relate to the modern world only? It's funny how you use an entirely different tone in your off-site email to me compared to how you speak here. By all means, find some verifiable sources to back up your arguments, or else, give it a rest. You have so far contributed little other than a series of whinges, profane comments, and a WP:ATTACK against myself. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with Jersey John: Sinosphere denotes East Asian civilizations that is historically characterized by heavy Sinic influences. I have never heard of any negative connotations associated with Sinosphere - since it denotes a Chinese Pan-regional association between people of similar cultures. You are making a big fuss out of nothing, go take your trolling somewhere else.Phead128 (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

After more than a year, you chime in what that? Look, I like to defend my friends also, sometimes even when they are completely wrong... But after more than a year, that is asinine. And before you point out the irony, I have not looked at this article since before you commented. Jersey John (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Which leads me to wonder who the troll is. Jersey John (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously

Why hasn't this been deleted? Or at least renamed? Jersey John (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Troll harder. Then you might get a bit more attention. </tongue-in-cheek remark> -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not trolling. And it seems to me the only reason why this sham of an article remains is that no one else really cares about it and you watch it like a hawk. It's your little baby, but it's a sham. Reasons have been given multiple times. Jersey John (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it just comes up. It's one of the 4138 articles on my user watchlist. Learn to wikiuser. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL You accuse me of trolling, but your internet speak and 4chan style wording lend me to think you are the troll. "Learn to..." Please. Jersey John (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The man who shows his knowledge immediately reveals his guilt. - Analects of Confucius -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure you "showed your knowledge" before I did, nitwit. Jersey John (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey cool guise, let's beat a one year old dead horse! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What is this article about?

In the top of the article, it gives the translation of Sinophere as 漢字文化園 kanzi bunka en, or "Chinese character culture sphere," a term which includes Japan and Korea, then it goes on to describe the Sinosphere as being composed of places which speak Chinese as a first language, which doesn't. In other words, it's being written with people who have completely different definitions of the term they're describing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.246.24 (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

i believe this is inclusive of Singapore right?(124.13.42.45 (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC))

Umm

Why is the Philippines, Indonesia, & Thailand not included? Sorry, I'm new here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.193.216 (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware of, they have never been part of any Chinese cultural sphere. Thailand is an Indianized kingdom that uses a Brahmi-based alphabet, Indonesia is a Islamic nation, and the Philippines are nowhere as "within the Chinese sphere" as the other two. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinese term???

According to this article, the term "Sinosphere" is coined by an American linguist. Why the heck are we glossing this English term with Chinese characters that AFAIK are translations of this English term? DHN (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article infobox, the translations are of "East Asian cultural sphere". There is more than one term to describe the topic, and Sinosphere is just one of them. Oops, it looks like an IP editor removed one of the parameters from the infobox. I'll be adding it back now. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, in English-speaking terms, the neologism coined in the US "Sinosphere" might be common, however the word is not used in Chinese; in Chinese the concept is known as "East Asian Cultural Sphere". There are a number of terms, more than one, which describe the same concept (Confucian world, Chinese world, Chinese character sphere, Kanji world, etc), and Sinosphere is not the sole, nor the most dominant term. 漢字文化圏 translates to EACS, not Sinosphere. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Japan - Sphere

Just putting this intpo he mix, but wasn't the Sino sphere once referring to the Japanese led Asia and it derivative terms Co-prosperity sphere, it seems that sino - has slipped to mean China now...anyway...some history buffs may hel[ out here but I can not but help feel their has been a slippage in the meaning, conceptually though it seems to accords who is leading up the far east area — Preceding unsigned comment added by JUBALCAIN (talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Better sources

I was curious about the lack of Singapore in the list of countries in the Sinosphere. Unfortunately provision of sources is unhelpful because:

• A large fraction of the sources are not in English.
• Some of the English sources are long but the citation doesn't say where in the source to find the information.

"Sinosphere" isn't a term one sees much of - is there even a consistent usage for it in English or is it something writers occassionaly make up when the feel like it as a parallel to "Anglospere"? This article needs better sourcing or it needs deleting. Readin (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

List of countries?

Surprisingly, this article doesn't contain a list of countries and regions that belong to the sinosphere. --93.220.56.101 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Does WP give the wrong "Sinosphere" definition?

An ongoing Language Log discussion criticizes this Sinosphere article: Victor Mair, Sinophone and Sinosphere. What do you think? Keahapana (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Split "Sinosphere" and "Chinese character cultural sphere"? They should be different, separate terms; I can see why they can be confused, given the closeness between the two topics (from looking at this talk page, it looks like the confusion has existed since 2005). "Sinosphere", termed by Matisoff, refers to various linguistic similarities and influences, whilst "漢字文化圏" is a Japanese term that specifically refers to countries that use Chinese characters, which is what the zhwiki and jawiki articles describe. A lot of the content in the "Defining characteristics" section are not related to Matisoff's "Sinosphere", such as the calligraphy, religion and chopsticks information. These were added many years ago, but with no actual reference.

I remember within the last year, the lede originally read "Sinosphere, or East Asian Cultural Sphere, is a..." and the infobox included alternate names as well, however someone removed them, despite that it is a translation from the Japanese term. At the same time, "Sinophone" refers to Chinese-speaking regions, such as Singapore and Taiwan, and should also not be confused with Sinosphere and 漢字文化圏 - this article used to cover a lot of this as well, until it was (rightfully) removed about a year ago.

In Chinese literature, there are plenty of references to "漢字文化圏", so it's not like we're describing something that doesn't exist; rather, it has been confused with a similar but separate concept, Matisoff's "Sinosphere". Thus, I think a split is needed: "Chinese character cultural sphere" (or another synonym, whichever one seems best) which carries along the zh, ja and kowiki interwikis, and "Sinosphere", which only refers to the Matisoff term, and should not be interwikied to zh:漢字文化圏 and ja:漢字文化圏. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this Sinosphere article should cover the original areal-linguistic meaning and the 漢字文化圏 material should be split into a new article. The title is problematic. Your suggestion for interwiki cleanup also sounds good. However, the zh "漢字文化圏" article links to zh-yue "中華文化圈" and fr "Monde chinois", which seem different. Another problem is the usage overlap with Greater China and its redirect Sinophone world. Anyway, I started a revised Sinophone article, which should help us clarify the semantic differences. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't like that article, because it assumes that just because Matisoff was apparently the first to use his term, that his coinage is the most authoritative usage of 'Sinosphere'. The "areal-linguistic meaning", while interesting, is of little interest to non-linguists, and many people since him have articulated new meanings for 'Sinosphere', especially by analogy to 'Anglosphere'. I reject the proposal of making Matisoff's idea the primary page for 'Sinosphere'.

I actually noticed that this article was too short a few months ago and was writing a draft of 'Sinosphere' based on Joshua Fogel (2009)'s definition, which refers to the Sinocentric world order in East Asia before the Westphalian disruption. The topic is very broad, which is why that project was stalled. I guess this 'problem' could be solved by treating 'Sinosphere' as a sort of disambiguation page, because it is used in many different ways, including as a way to describe the East Asian Cultural Sphere. Shrigley (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The Fogel usage sounds interesting. I skimmed GB for his definition, but could only find (p. 9) "a "China"-centered universe was assumed on both sides—something I shall call the "Sinosphere"." How does this differ from Sinocentrism? Keahapana (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

They're not all that different, if they're used correctly: i.e, "Sinospheric world order; Sinosphere" or "Sinocentric world order; Sinocentrism". But just as with Sinosphere, some writers have appropriated the word "Sinocentrism" by analogy to "Eurocentrism" to describe a kind of ethnocentrism or cultural chauvinism. If that meaning could be purged from the article (placed in "Han chauvinism", I guess), then I wouldn't mind having this article refer solely to Matisoff's idea. Shrigley (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Language Log's definition is not the general usage, regardless of who coined the term, it's the usage that defines its meaning. Considering the usage in Google News Archive we can see it means the area of Chinese polito-cultural influence. The LL definition would be a severely restricted version of that usage. The usage on Wikipedia is also a severely restricted version of that usage. Instead the LangLog version should have a separate article Sinosphere (Sinophone) or something and the current content should similarly be separated to Sinosphere (Sinograph) or something. The current title should function as an overviewing article on the the sphere of influence of Sinitic culture, language, and political influence throughout history. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Benlisquare that there are two distinct encyclopedic topics here:

1. the linguistic area characterized by shared typology (tone systems, syllable structure, word order, etc) across language families
2. the area of wholesale adoption of Chinese literary culture

It's true that Matisoff called the first topic the "Sinosphere" from the perspective of Tibeto-Burman linguistics, but that term is flawed in its implication of a unidirectional flow of influence. That is not completely true of historic times, and certainly not for earlier periods. After all, that is how Chinese is believed to have become so typologically different from most other Sino-Tibetan languages. The preferred term for this topic in recent literature seems to be the Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area (MSEA for short).

The second topic is also important, but I don't know of a common name for it in English. "East Asian Cultural Sphere" lacks the emphasis on Chinese literary culture. "Sinosphere" at least has part of that, but it's still vague. Kanguole 10:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The alternative is to have one article with two sections, with each definition described in each section. The lead para would read "Sinosphere is a term coined by linguists etc etc, which may refer to either abcde or lmnop". This approach is used by a few sociology-related articles for topics with the same (or similar) name but different concepts, I think (I tried thinking of something to link to as an example, but nothing really comes to mind at the moment. Though, I'm sure I've certainly seen this approach used before). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article mixing up these two topics, namely East Asian languages – it would be better to fix that article than duplicate it. In addition, "Sinosphere" isn't a good name for either of these topics; it would be better as a disambiguation page. Kanguole 01:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so... From what I've gathered, the East Asian languages article refers to the East Asian sprachbund which covers Sino-Tibetan, Tai-Kadai, Mon-Khmer and Hmong-Mien languages that share similar linguistic aspects to other languages within the East Asian region, whilst the Japanese concept of 漢字文化圏 strictly refers to languages that use Chinese characters. The first definition would encompass the second definition, whilst also including languages such as Tibetan and Thai, whilst the second definition is not as large, and does not include languages which traditionally use Indic scripts. If we drew a venn diagram of the two, subset B (漢字文化圏) would be a circle within subset A (East Asian sprachbund). All of B may be A, but not all of A is B. Languages such as Tibetan, Thai and Yi share various linguistic aspects within the regional sprachbund and have vocabularies containing many Chinese loanwords due to historical exchange and proximity, however these languages have never ever used Chinese characters, and hence are not considered as part of the 漢字文化圏 by Japanese linguists. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I said, that article is a mess. For example, that larger area is not what linguists would call a sprachbund. Kanguole 16:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Sinosphere should be a DAB page, with the current content split into two new articles; Sinosphere (linguistics), (areal linguistics), etc. and Sinosphere (ethnolinguistics), Sinosphere (cultural studies), or whatever is the best translation for 漢字文化圏. An understandable title like Chinese cultural sphere would be better for Wikipedia readers than the popular but Chinglishy Chinese character cultural sphere. This abstruse phrase can be parsed either as "Chinese-character cultural sphere" ("Kanji cultural sphere" is more common than "Hanzi cultural sphere") or "Chinese character-cultural sphere" (e.g., this study). We will also need to straighten out the existing English redirects to Sinosphere (several of which are groaners): Chinese character cultural sphere, Chinese cultural sphere, Chinese world, Continental Asia, East Asian Cultural Sphere, Sinospheric, and Sinospheric languages. Keahapana (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The direct translation "Chinese character cultural sphere" is used in several English-language works, and would be a less ambiguous name for this article, leaving the vague "Sinosphere" as a disambiguation page. Kanguole 09:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying we should move this article, then create a dab page? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say so. Except for a bit of etymology, this article is about that topic, and, as Ramsey says, "Sinosphere" is too ambiguous. Kanguole 12:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting Sprachbund, Kanguole. While there are many single articles (Truth, Culture, etc.) for vague and ambiguous words, a dab might be the best solution. Anglophone dabs English language(–speaking), primarily linguistic English-speaking world (linking 2 lists and 4 articles), and cultural linguistic Anglosphere. What should the working titles be? "Sinophone (East Asian linguistics)"? "Chinese-character cultural sphere" for 汉字文化圈, restricted to CJKV languages? What do we call 中华文化圈? "Chinese sociocultural/politico-cultural sphere"? Keahapana (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's an interesting discussion.

• Haun Saussy, On The Phone, Printculture.

Keahapana (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• I largely agree with the decision to disambiguate this article, but one of the articles missing is the Chinese cultural sphere article suggested by Keahapana. Adoption of Chinese literary culture is not the same as Chinese cultural sphere and should not be treated as such. Culture is much broader than literature, and includes topics such as cuisine, social customs and dress that are not covered in the new literary culture article.--Ross Monroe (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• We also need to distinguish between the term Sinosphere as originally used by James Matisoff and the more recent MSEA linguistic area term. Although the two are similar, they are not exactly the same. I believe this quote by Mark Hansell, a student of Matisoff's, will be useful:

"As a longtime student of his (that shows you how long it took me to finish grad school!), let me clarify — Matisoff was talking about the languages of Southeast Asia, and wanted to distinguish between those languages and language families whose main external influence (cultural as well as linguistic) was Chinese civilization (such as Vietnamese, Zhuang, Hmong-Mien etc.), and those whose main influence was Indian civilization ("The Indosphere", such as Tibetan, Siamese, Khmer, etc.). Primarily it is a matter of where elements of "high culture" such as religion, literature, etc. came from, and of course one of those elements is which script played a role in disseminating that culture. Those areas in which subcontinental religion and literature were models adopted some form of Indic script, and imported a huge number of Indic loan vocabulary; those under Chinese cultural sway often adapted Chinese characters (e.g. Vietnamese chu nom, Zhuang, etc.)."

• As Hansell's explanation shows, some languages which are part of the MSEA linguistic area are not part of Matisoff's Sinosphere.--Ross Monroe (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Matisoff clarified what he meant by "Sinosphere" in "Sino-Tibetan Linguistics: Present State and Future Prospects", Annual Review of Anthropology, 20 (1991):469–504:

"What is now China south of the Yangtze (called 'Cisyangtzeana' in 150) did not have a considerable Han Chinese population until the beginning of the current era. In early times the scattered Chinese communities of the region must have been on a numerical and cultural par with the coterritorial non-Chinese populations, with borrowing of material culture and vocabulary proceeding in all directions."

That is what we now call the MSEA linguistic area. Kanguole 12:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What about the difference between a cultural sphere, which includes social customs, religion, cuisine, etc, and a literary culture, which is a more specific term? --Ross Monroe (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The broader concept seems rather fuzzy. Do you have sources that discuss it? Kanguole 12:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Some examples of sources that describe the concept:

• Interpreters in Early Imperial China: "The adoption of Chinese rituals and legal institutions and the promotion of Confucianism as their cultural essence"
• Sinic World: "This world shared unifying belief systems, religion, language, and administrative structures"
• The Sinic World in Perspective: "The higher cultures of all four East Asian countries derive basically from the civilization of ancient North China, as shaped over the millenia by Confucian ethical concepts and the tradition of a centralized empire"

There are others, as well. The concept of a cultural sphere (religion, ethics, rituals, politics), broader than the adoption of a literary culture, is a notable one.--Ross Monroe (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Singapore

Why is Singapore not included? over 70% of its country is Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.35.195 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 February 2013 UTC

Part of the problem is that it's not clear what this article is about (as discussed above). Kanguole 09:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sinosphere/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is really a neoligism that is rarely used. --Ideogram 07:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

「Sinophone」≠「漢字文化圈」

Vietnamese, Japanese, Korea certainly speak Chinese. even now, the phonetical links are undeniable.

Sinophone (漢語圈) is not the same as Chinese character cultural sphere (漢字文化圈). Countries like Japan, Vietnam, and Korean never spoke Chinese but they adopted Chinese characters and Classical Chinese as their official writing system and written language. The statement "It differs from Sinophone includes countries such as Japan, Korea and Vietnam which have historically made some use of the Chinese writing system or currently make use of it" should be revised. For clarification of translations please refer to the section below. --N6EpBa7Q (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Misleading Interlanguage Links!

• 東亞文化圈 = East Asian cultural sphere
• 漢字文化圈 = Adoption of Chinese literary culture (though usually known as the "Chinese character cultural sphere" outside Wiki)
• 漢語圈 = Sinophone

What you see above should be the correct translation, but the "Chinese character cultural sphere" (漢字文化圈) articles in the East Asian language versions of Wikipedia are being redirected to the article "East Asian cultural sphere"! The interlanguage links in Chinese (Zh), Cantonese Chinese (Zh-yue), Mingdong Chinese (Cdo), Vietnamese (Vi), Japanese (Ja), and Korean (Ko) realy should not point to "Chinese character cultural sphere."

East Asian cultural sphere vs "Chinese character cultural sphere

East Asian cultural sphere (東亞文化圈) is not the same as "Chinese character cultural sphere" or the more common name "Chinese character cultural sphere" (漢字文化圈). This article discusses the two as if they were one topic and the interlanguage links of the article are very messy and misleading.

The concept 漢字文化圈 emphasizes on Chinese literacy culture, while 東亞文化圈 emphasizes on Chinese culture itself. However, the interlanguage links to the Chinese, Japanese, and other East Asian version of the article East Asian cultural sphere are coming instead from "Chinese character cultural sphere."

Please migrate the interlanguage links that refer to 漢字文化圈 to Adoption of Chinese literary culture instead of East Asian cultural sphere. --N6EpBa7Q (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Backup

|romaji=kanji bunkaken |hanja=漢字文化圈 |hangul=한자문화권 |rr=hanja munhwagwon |qn=Hán tự văn hoá quyển(Sino-Viet.)
Khu vực văn hóa chữ Hán (native) |hn=漢字文化圈 (Sino-Viet.)
區域文化𡨸漢 (native)}}

The ways of saying "Chinese cultural sphere" in major languages of Sinosphere.

References

Recent pro-Chinese POV edits

The new map added by User:Durianlover1 has way too much of a pro-Chinese POV. I've reverted it back to the original. I highly doubt that all of Siberia, Central Asia, Nepal, and Southeast Asia are part of a single cultural sphere.--Ross Monroe (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt that all of South Asia, Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, Southwest China, and the Philippines are part of a single cultural sphere, but a similarly gradiose map exists on Greater India. It all depends on the criteria used to label the area, which in that case is the historical use of some Indic script, the adoption of Buddhism by some of the populace, and even the existence of certain loan words from Sanskrit. Reverting someone based on your intuition that they "have way too much of a pro-Chinese POV" is pretty inflammatory, and there are more tactful ways to handle questions of defining this concept. Shrigley (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have put back the revised map as it is a more accurate representation of Chinese cultural sphere. The old map refers to the Sinophere world, where Chinese character was/is used - primarily in PRC, ROC, ROK, DPRK, and Japan. As for the claim that it's too pro-Chinese POV, I am simply the messenger - don't shoot me. As for your doubt whether all of those countries are within a single cultural sphere, I agree that there are more than one influencing culture. Some of those countries were/are also part of Greater India and Islamic world (Indonesia, Malaysia, Western China, etc). Durianlover1 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have revised the article, with new references from Western scholars and a more neutral tone. That nonsense about Siberia and Nepal being part of China needs to stay out. Also, no more edit wars, if anyone wants to discuss why I took the map out, talk about it here and not by reverting its deletion.--Ross Monroe (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"More accurate"? Really? Do you have sources to back that up? [citation needed] please. Comparisons to Greater India are completely irrelevant. I'm not sure why you and Shrigley are bringing it up. I'm not trying to insult you, and I apologize if I overreacted, but we need sources here.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yupe, you overreacted on this matter and I have escalated this issue for resolution. There are extensive of facts and historical artifacts supported it. How about yours? Do you have any evidence that "Chinese cultural sphere" only refers to China, Vietnam, Japan, and Korea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durianlover1 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Look at all the sources listed under References in the article. The usage by Nishijima Sadao, Samuel P. Huntington, Edwin O. Reischauer, and Arnold J. Toynbee shows that this mainly applies to the core East Asian countries.--Ross Monroe (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

For Central Asia: Biran, Michal. The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World, Cambridge, CUP, 2005 (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization)Durianlover1 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

For South East Asia: Chee-kiong Tong. Identity and Ethnic Relations in Southeast Asia: Racializing Chineseness. Springer, 2010 Durianlover1 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

For North Asia: Ann Reid (2002). The Shaman's Coat: A Native History of Siberia. Walker & Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durianlover1 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources present specifically mentioned that the regions are part of the Sinic world, Chinese cultural sphere, or the hundreds of other labels for the concept. Nishijima Sadao does include Mongolia as part of the cultural sphere, and Huntington includes Singapore and other Southeast Asian countries with major Chinese minorities. Could we compromise?--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this article in general is very Chinese POV. This article is poorly referenced, and the terminology is used liberally without alternative considerations. For instance, the term in Korean refers to Greater China rather than a Chinese cultural sphere that includes Korea. Either this article needs some major rework, or it needs to be merged with a more proper subject. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Chinese cultural sphere is a notable concept, the article just needs to be improved. The so-called "Sinic World" is an academic topic that can be handled neutrally. This article on JSTOR should be used as a guide for how to improve the neutrality of this article.--Ross Monroe (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cydevil38 that there should be a proper terminology for it. When "Chinese" is referenced in this article, it doesn't mean that it supports PRC or ROC claim on those countries. This article should be objective and provide an overview of history. Let's find a better word for "Chinese cultural sphere". How about "Sinic cultural sphere"? Any better suggestion? Durianlover1 (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I replied to Cydevil38 stating that Sinic world is the more common name. If you, Shrigley, and Cydevil want to change it to that, that's fine with me.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think N6EpBa7Q cogently addressed this issue and went on to create an article that is more appropriate for the topic. While this POV fork is a WP policy violation, nonetheless Adoption of Chinese literary culture provides a more appropriate context under which the topic is presented. Therefore, I recommend merging this article with Adoption of Chinese literary culture or delete this article, while renaming Adoption of Chinese literary culture to a more appropriate title. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read some of the discussions at the previous Sinosphere article. If this article and Adoption of Chinese literary culture cover somewhat different subjects, then I suggest using East Asian cultural sphere, which can be translated to 東亞文化圏. While "East Asian cultural sphere" is not very commonly used, neither are the alternatives, such as "Sinic world" or "Confucian world". Meanwhile, "East Asian cultural sphere" can be conveniently translated to relevant concepts in pertinent languages, such as Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The book is three decades old. I just perused recent academic articles, and many of them use "Chinese cultural sphere" in a different meaning, similar to the definition used in Sinophone world. This is also the case for the Korean terminology, which is used to refer to the Sinophone world. The figure posted here refers to a different Korean terminology, which is used for [Adoption of Chinese literary culture]. I recommend merging Sinophone world and Chinese cultural sphere, under the definition of Sinophone world using whichever title that is more appropriate, and using Adoption of Chinese literary culture for the current definition of Chinese cultural sphere". Cydevil38 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Search for "Sinic world" or "Confucian world", which brings up more results. The definition of Sinophone refers to people who speak Chinese, or one of the many dialects of Chinese. The Sinic world includes most of East Asia (Korea, Japan, and Vietnam) which are not considered Sinophone countries, while the Sinophone world includes places like Malaysia and Singapore that aren't part of the Sinic world. The Far East cultural sphere is notable as an academic topic and has been discussed by many scholars, including in Huntington's famous book, The Clash of Civilizations. Sinophone and Sinic are very distinct, and merging it will confuse readers like the original Sinosphere article did.--Ross Monroe (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "Chinese cultural sphere" is not commonly used to refer to the concept presented here. Rather, it is commonly used to refer to what you call the "Sinophone world". The Korean transliteration presented here, "중화문화권", also specifically refer to the "Sinophone world". Somehow, the split of Sinosphere went very wrong, and we have these conflicting terminologies. What we need is a common term used in English, and it would be better if this term also translates to the corresponding terms in Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese. If you think "Sinic world" or "Confucian world" is bring up more results, which means they are more common than the currently used term, then one of them should replace "Chinese culture sphere", which is an inappropriate title for this article. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problems with Sinic world. Per your suggestion, and that of Durian's, I will move it. WP:COMMONNAME is what matters. I'm not sure about the Korean translation, but one of the problems with English and foreign language translations is that they don't perfect match up, like the discussion on Talk:Sinosphere.--Ross Monroe (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

How about East Asian cultural sphere? Although itself is not very commonly used, it's more commonly used than the term Sinic world, and it has corresponding concepts in other languages. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the title to Sinic world. I hope that the new title is more neutral. One of the problems with Wikipedia is that on many Chinese articles, a pro-Chinese bias can be prevalent.--Ross Monroe (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Sinic world still bears the problems I have previously pointed out. It's not very commonly used, and its corresponding terms in other languages specifically refer to the "Sinophone world". In this regard, I have suggested "East Asian cultural sphere", which is also defined in East Asia, and has corresponding terms in other languages. What is your opinion on this alternative? Cydevil38 (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The eminent scholars Huntington and Reischauer both use Sinic world or civilization as the name for the cultural sphere. Fogel isn't as famous as the other two, but he also promotes the term. A quick Google books and Google scholar search shows more results for it than for East Asian cultural sphere. Do you have any sources that show that "East Asian cultural sphere" is more common? "Sinophone world" is used in English as a term for spoken Chinese, which is what has priority per WP:COMMONNAME. I am not opposed to using an alternative name, if it can be shown that it has been used by prominent academics.--Ross Monroe (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Although Sinic world is more common, you may have a point that East Asian cultural sphere is more neutral. I have moved it as per your suggestion.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see the move. If you move the page to East Asian cultural sphere, I can change the corresponding terminologies in other languages except for Vietnamese. Here's a link to the page used for East Asia in defining it as a "cultural" concept.[18] Google scholars indicate East Asian cultural sphere is less common than Sinic world, but considering how the term "East Asia" is often used to define a cultural sphere, I think East Asian cultural sphere may present a much more common and NPOV terminology. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole concept is a bit convoluted and oversimplistic. Of course there are Chinese influences beyond the regions discussed here - in architecture (Mongolian Buddhist temples, Nepalese lion-dog and dragon motifs, Tajikstani tea houses, certain mosques in Central Asia, like the ones in Karakol, Kyrgyzstan and Zharkent, Kazakhstan), cuisine (momo and thukpa in Nepal, lagman and manty in Central Asia, buuz in Momgolia), and cosmology (the Chinese zodiac has been adopted by many Turkic, Mongolic, Tibetic, and Tai-Khmer cultures in the countries neighboring China). It's also true to say that many outside cultures have influences China - The erhu, now ubiquitous to Chinese folk music, was adopted from the northern steppe nomads, and is even recognized as a foreign instrument in the name (the “hu” means foreign). Buddhism, and to a lesser extent, Islam, have also had profound impacts on China. Trying to draw lines between the parts where East Asia ends and other regions begin is a useless and ultimately fruitless endeavor. Just take it for what it is. --117.136.26.164 (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Rice as main staple food

"Rice is a main staple food in all of East Asia and is a major focus of food security.[23] In East Asian countries, cooked rice is a synonym of food."

The statement is true for the present history where rice can be found in most of Sinic world civilization. That's said, in the past history rice was not the main staple food in Northern China, only in Southeast Asia and Southern China. Wheat-based food dominated Northern China and other regions. Durianlover1 (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on exciting and useful article + suggestions

Friends: several editors have put a lot of work on this article, as you well know, so I thought I would offer my congratulations on a terrific start on an important topic, whatever you decide to call it. The Section "Cultural commonalities" shows an excellent selection of topics.

I do suggest, however, that the article will be much stronger and carry more weight if you:

• Find more Reliable Sources#Some types of sources. The impression I get is that the references came from taking the first thing that turned up on a Google search. Wang Hui is a great man, but citing one passage in a random article is not good. Sun Lung-kee is a wonderful historian, but by no means the authority to cite on Arnold Toynbee.

Sometimes you just can't find good sources on the internet, or at least you can't tell from looking at Google searches which sources are better than others. If you are near a college or university library, it's much better to look there. Librarians are eager to help.

• I've already suggested in an Edit that you be careful in formatting your citations. Do not cite the editor of the volume, cite the author of the essay. I know it's a pain, but this article is important and you should do your work in a way that will last. For instance, who wrote the article in the book edited by Brook & Luong?
• Also remember that the English Wikipedia prefers English language sources. When a Chinese source is better, it has to be cited in Chinese, not by a translation of the title into English. This is because the notes are not only to show where you got the material but to lead readers to works which they can read (another reason to give solid general sources).

Some specifics:

• Note 10. What is this reference? Huang's book appears to be in Chinese and needs to be replaced with a good reference.

• Note 12, 13, 15. Komicki is a perfectly good reference -- but for some other topic. You can do better than this!

• Note #14. Miyake. No book. Appears to be a broken reference.
• Note 17. No need to say "retrieved" for a book, only for a web reference which can change.
• Note #18. This is a BIG PROBLEM! First: cite the title "Transition ... in the First Half of the Twentieth Century") and author (" X. Yu")of the essay, not the editor of the book. Second: When you see the title, you will realize that the essay is not what you want. You cannot do good work if you just Google and find a passing reference. To do the good work of which you are clearly capable, you need to find the most reliable source.
• Note #19. Two problems: First, the Section Business Culture describes economic development, but does not relate it to the theme of the article. Second: Harrington & Wharf is a fine book, but it is not concerned with "business culture." Get thee to a library!
• #20 Davidson is an OK source, though there are far better ones; but the specific article must be cited by Title and author: Naomichi Ishige, "Food Culture of East Asia." And you need to give more of the details, such as the exceptions to the statement that "Rice is the main staple of food in all of East Asia..." BTW, what is a "staple of food"? Why not just say "many people in East Asia eat rice"?
• #21. Oh -- now I see. Chern et al. say "rice is the most important staple food in East Asia." You did not quote carefully. Also, "food security" is not part of "cuisine."

The editors' work on this page is smart and committed. I offer my suggestions in a spirit of admiration, in the confidence that you will take them in this spirit. But to make Wikipedia work, we all have to do careful work and follow the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. If it were easy, we wouldn't need Wikipedia, we'd just Google everything. ch (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Good work, and I strongly agree. It looks like the cultural commonalities section is composed of parts from other Wikipedia articles. I checked Huang's book on Amazon, and it does appear to be in English. The article should also directly reference Huntington's Clash of Civilizations and Toynbee's A Study of History.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Include Singapore and Macau?

Should Singapore be included as a member of the Sinosphere, considering the huge Chinese influence there? And what about Macau? ForestAngel (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Singapore and Macau should be included as around 75% of Singaporeans are ethnic Chinese. Macau is part of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DT07 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Rice

In East Asian countries, the word, 'rice' can embody the meaning of food in general (simplified Chinese: 饭; traditional Chinese: 飯; pinyin: fàn).

This needs to be rewritten. 饭 is only cooked rice. The plant is called 水稻. --2.246.29.122 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This might not be a good example. --123.217.72.4 (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Millennium Era

Didn't the growing clout of China and Japan and South Korea during the Millennium Era affect the spread of the East Asian Cultural Sphere. I would point to the creation of Manga translated to English, and Animes, and animated films. Maybe that should be included in the section.Qwed117 (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Southeast Asia

Why is Southeast Asian countries like Thailand, Indonesia, or Phillipines be included in this article? sure they are influenced by China, but this article is about "cultural sphere", not "cultural influence". Being influenced by China doesn't necessary mean it is part of East Asia cultural sphere. The only culture in Southeast Asia that belong to East Asian cultural sphere is Vietnamese culture. Ekirahardian (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, the Writing Systems section doesn't make sense because it list many script influenced by India, Cyrillic, even Arabic. That has nothing to do with East Asian cultural sphere. China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam historically use shared script which is Chinese script (called Hanzi in Chinese, Kanji in Japanese, Hanja in Korean, and Han Tu in Vietnamese). Ekirahardian (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan's Issue

Taiwan should be included as separate to China due to difference in governance (communist and democracy, PRC and ROC). Due to China's pressure, Taiwan is considered as part of China (governed by the PRC) in the international stage, however, in wikipedia, readers want legitimate, unbiased information. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda or the spread of false information. Wikipedia is created to educate people and correct people's understanding of the world with REAL facts that is not influenced by the media, politics or any other factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DT07 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Do not add this to the article unless there is consensus to do so; see WP:STABLE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

When discussing culture, the article has not split the Koreas since its existence. Per WP:BRD, the longstanding version before DT07's nationalist tinkering will stay; this is aside from the fact that the argumentation from DT07 is typical of hardline Taiwan independence / nationalist fanatics. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Pro-democratic Chinese, please do not go around labelling others inappropriately without facts. False information is not allowed on wikipedia. "when writing, do state facts and facts about notable opinions, but do not offer your opinion as fact." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DT07 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead section (and potentially much of the article) is original research.

The source cited in the lead section discusses the history of Chinese writing, and only restricted to China. Based on the source provided this article should be about historical geography from the perspective of language (specifically writing) as opposed to culture as a whole. The interlinkages between the historical spread and development of writing system(s) in a few countries and a supposed cultural region in the present are not clearly demonstrated. Sockerkorn (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Please

First, Vietnamese people often say "Hán tự văn hóa khuyển" rather than "Vùng văn hóa chữ Hán".

Second, please remove Vietnam out of this sphere. This is due to the uncommon known about Vietnam's position and role in East Asia. 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:3934:F779:A7A2:3070 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@2601:204:E37F:FFF1:3934:F779:A7A2:3070: There's no reason why it should be removed other than your personal preference. If you do not like the relatively recent Chinese influence on Vietnam, you have to understand that that is your personal opinion. Wikipedia goes off history and historical references which point to Vietnam having had experienced substantial Sinic influence for centuries. This is the reason why it is included. ChrisTakey (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Question

The East Asian cultural sphere in its lead states that it encompasses countries within East and Southeast Asia that were historically influenced by Chinese culture. Singapore is 76% Han Chinese, has Mandarin as one of its official languages, and when accounting both Buddhism and Taoism, 43% of Singaporeans adhere to these religions, a plurality. Lunar New Year is a huge public holiday in that country, designated as one of its official holidays. Christianity is also influential in the country, just as we've seen in South Korea. In addition, Confucianism is also a strong influence behind the country's leadership, which was specifically mentioned by Lee Kuan Yew, an ethnic Chinese, their first Prime Minister and arguably the nation's founding father, and the father of the current Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong. His article lead even mentions his own country Singapore as a Chinese society which he had led. The country also uses Han characters (obviously) and uses Simplified Chinese, the only country outside Mainland China itself. And yet I see Vietnam's inclusion despite the Vietnamese language not even using Chinese characters these days. So why is this left out? That's the point of a cultural sphere. The article needs serious rework. Jesobul (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't even include Mongolia for some reason. I'm not sure what parameters this article is actually using... It seems to be simply a "mirror article" of East Asia where Mongolia has been ejected, Vietnam has been arbitrarily included (though, in East Asia, Vietnam has recently been listed as "culturally similar" in the lede) and the article literally revolves around China (in the past, editors have also attempted to make East Asia a soapbox for China, but I've changed it to be more neutral). The entire existence of this article East Asian cultural sphere should be under heavy scrutiny and it needs to be closely monitored. If it is truly only about "cultural similarities to China" and not about territorial sovereignty, then Singapore actually is a good candidate to be included. As you've said, Mandarin is an official language of Singapore, so, by law, Singapore is more Chinese than Vietnam is. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)