Talk:Sinosphere
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
Contents |
[edit] 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)
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)
-
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)
[edit] 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)
-
-
- 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)
-
[edit] 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.
- Did. Yug
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
