Talk:Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This is a candidate for the 1.0 core topics collaboration of the fortnight. Please see that page to support or comment on the nomination. We are working toward a release version of Wikipedia.
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
B Asia has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Article Creation and Improvement Drive Asia was the Article Creation and Improvement Drive for the week spanning from Sunday, 18 March 2007.

For more details, see the Article Creation and Improvement Drive history.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Afghanistan in table

Why isn't Afghanistan in the table for the list of countries?

[edit] Middle East should be its own region

Why can't the MIddle East be on the list of regions of the world. It already has an article but here it is just considered part of Asia.

The middle east is just a political term for South West Asia, it is a physical geographical part of the continent. Robwi 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You are right. The Middle East is its own region. The US government's foreign relations sector recognizes this fact. The US government's regional scheme is unrepresented here at the current time.--DarkTea 12:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Middle east is a political term, this page is about a geographical term Asia which the middle east is part of. EOD --–  Daimengrui  talk  20:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West

  • What is West Asia meant to refer to?
    • Usually, the term West Asia is a synonym for the Middle East, or southwest Asia. If the part of Russia west of the Ural Mountains was considered to be part of Asia, that would obviously make up a large part of (north)west Asia, but that's considered to be in Europe. Hope this helped!

The description of the seperation between Europe and Asia says "The boundary between Asia and Europe runs via the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, the Hellespont...". Now, according to the page on Hellespont, that word is simply the ancient name for Dardanelles. So, shouldn't Hellespont be replaced by Bosphorus? Gyan 01:30 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Can someone please make a color coded map of what they differentiate between West, Central, SW, East, North, South and SE Asia?

A term: Greater Central Asia; meaning that of Asia that the Central Asian Republics have been influenced etc, http://www.international-relations.com/wbeurasia/WBEA-2003-Lec1.htm

[edit] Cyprus missing from the table, but included in the "Southwest asia"-region

in the table with countries Cyprus is missing (maybe becouse it is island) - this should be fixed (maybe with a note that it also is regareded as european country for xxx reasons - see the "Europe"-page)

[edit] Area of cross-continent countries

In the table with area sizes - the area for Turkey mentions the whole area of Turkey, including european part. Maybe this should change to include only the asian part. This is the Asia page, so when we list the area of some country we should list it's ASIAN territory - or at least a note should pe placed that gives explanation: Turkey total XXX sq.km = YYY asian + ZZZ european.

Other cross-continent countries have similar ommissions - Russia, Azerbaidjan, etc. - see Europe page for details. Similar case with Egypth - both asian and african territories, no distiction, no note ...

[edit] Suggest 3 possible wiki links for Asia.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Asia article:

  • Can link land mass: ...ned by subtracting [[Europe]] and [[Africa]] from the great land mass of [[Africa-Eurasia]]. The boundaries are vague, especially...
landmass dabs to continent, which is already used. This link would not enhance the article. --Theo (Talk) 11:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Can link island nation: ...]], which comprises part of the nation of [[Turkey]] * The island nation of [[Cyprus]] in the [[Mediterranean Sea]].... (link to section)
Implemented. --Theo (Talk) 12:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Can link West Bank and Gaza Strip: ...uded, although they can also be considered part of Europe. West Bank and Gaza Strip are not listed separately, but combined as Palestinian terr... (link to section)
West Bank and Gaza Strip dabs to the individual territories so this is not an enhancement. --Theo (Talk) 12:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) --BrendanRyan 02:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sentences ok?

Are those sentences from the Southwest Asia section ok?

"Middle East is especially commonly used by Americans (althought frequently incorrectly - as though 'Middle East' and 'Asia' or 'Middle East' and 'Africa' are 2 different regions). 'Middle East' (to some interpretations) is occasionally used to also refer to countries in North Africa."

--BrendanRyan 08:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I think they need some work. The first one is just confusing. I think I know what you are getting at, but it might be clearer if expanded somewhat. I wouldn't use the term "incorrect". These are overlapping designations used for different purposes. It is not like someone has tried to divide the world into a set of discreet regions and accidently put some countries in two. Some people do not understand the distinctions between the terms, but that doesn't mean the terms themselves are "incorrect", just that some people are bad at geography.
I asked about those sentences because they were written by the same person who wrote really POV stuff in the North Asia article.--BrendanRyan 02:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the inclusion of parts of North Africa in the Middle East is only "occasional" so I'm going to change that myself. Wincoote 01:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] satellite image

Cantus, you removed my xplanet image, re-inserting the Plate Carrée Projection projection (without comment). Now, the reason I created that image was because that projection results in extreme distortion when showing a variation in latitude as great as required to show the entirety of Asia. I argue that the simulated 'satellite view' gives a superior impression of the shape as well as the size of the continent in relation to the globe. dab (ᛏ) 17:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asia is not a continent??

Recently, I saw someone edit Asia (disambiguation) saying "Asia is not a continent". Anyone able to put this in detail?? Georgia guy 01:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did. Read Eurasia and Talk:Europe#continent or not. Geologists and geographers agree that the Asian continent doesn't exist; Eurasia does. Dividing Eurasia into Asia and Europe is a cultural distinction by Westerners. They may be separate regions, but they are not separate continents. Europe is geologically a peninsula of Eurasia, not even a subcontinent. - TAKASUGI Shinji 01:27, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
Presenting as a fact that Asia is not considered a continent is just wrong. Why? Because plenty of people consider it to be a continent, "Westerners" are also people you know. Wikipedia should not present this POV as a fact. --Bjarki 23:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is not a POV. In daily speech, the term continent refers to a world region including surrounding islands, thus Great Britain is a part of Europe and Japan is a part of Asia. Neither of them is a part of a geographical continent. Just see a map, and you'll see they are islands. - TAKASUGI Shinji 01:11, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
Yes this is a POV. Asia is widely considered a continent on its own. This is not a question of right or wrong but simply of a different understanding of a term which has no universally accepted definition. Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. --Bjarki 12:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I am from Russia and my first thought was to cry that asia is not a continent and that continent by definition is a continuous land mass. But before answering I took a look at wikipedia article "continent" and found out that my point of view is taught in Russia and Japan - thats why me and Shinji think this way. There is written that the other point of view is taught in western europe and USA. However wikipedia also says that "Eurasian" point of view is prefered in scientific society. So my POV is still the same - Asia is not a continent.--User:Ilya 15:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, if Russia and Japan do not recognize this concept. Then this article currently reflects a very biased "Western" point of view. I am glad you brought up these facts.--DarkTea 12:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Many Americans also take the view that Eurasia is a continent, though admittedly, we are somewhat of a minority. However, commonly in American English, if you really listen to how people use the term, it almost always refers to Asia Pacific, non-inclusive of the Middle East. Middle East, for political reasons, or whatever, is really a region in its own right.

[edit] Manufacturing

The examples of companies and such is heavily Japanese. I think five countries are listed as being heavy manufacturers, maybe someone can make the list five examples, one from each, rather than four japanese and a korean company? SchmuckyTheCat 21:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current ratio is appropriate. The economy section of this article should be deleted though, because it is in the Economy of Asia. The followings are Asian companies in the top 100 in the Forbes International 500 (2003).
Japan:
4. Toyota Motor
5. Mitsubishi
6. Mitsui & Co.
9. Nippon Telegraph & Telephone
11. Itochu
14. Sumitomo
15. Marubeni
16. Hitachi
17. Honda Motor
20. Sony
21. Matsushita Electric Industrial
24. Nissan Motor
25. Nissho Iwai-Nichimen
37. Toshiba
50. Tokyo Electric Power
53. NEC
54. Fujitsu
66. Mitsubishi Motors
73. Mitsubishi Electric
79. Sumitomo Mitsui Financial
85. Mizuho Financial
87. Ito-Yokado
93. Nippon Oil
95. Aeon
96. Millea Holdings
98. Canon
100. KDDI
South Korea:
35. Samsung Electronics
65. Samsung
97. LG Electronics
China (including Hong Kong):
52. China Petroleum & Chemical
75. PetroChina
No company of other countries is listed in the top 100. India's largest one is Indian Oil Corp (#118), and Taiwan's largest one is Cathay Financial (#183).
Japan is too big to fit well in the Asian economy — Japan's nominal GDP is $4.7 trillion, while Asia's total nominal GDP is only $8.8 trillion, which means Japan accounts for more than a half of the economy of Asia. Japan, and perhaps South Korea, should be categorized in the economy of developed nations or something, not in the economy of Asia. The current version of this article has the following sentence, which is rather silly because there is no cheap labor in Japan, an economical half of Asia:
Many Western companies from Europe and North America have significant operations in Asia to take avantage of its abundant supply of cheap labour.
- TAKASUGI Shinji 09:15, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

[edit] needed changes and additions

there should be SEPARATE articles on west asia and southwest asia, and articles on northwest asia and northeast asia.

Gringo300 2 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)

[edit] ephesus?

so, what would be that celebrated Greek word for the plains of Ephesus? One would assume it was Asia, from Assuwa. These are not two separate possibilities, but a hypothesis of an Anatolian loan into Greek. dab (ᛏ) 18:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that sentence did not look right when I came upon it (I know of no such Greek term, besides Asia itself, from Ancient Greek). I erased that stuff added by who-knows-who. Alexander 007 18:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

However, the Akkadian etymology is widely quoted, so maybe it should be mentioned as of 2005. Alexander 007 18:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

well, the Greek term is probably from Assuwa. As for Assuwa, god knows, maybe from Akkadian (although Hitt. assu- "good" seems likely). dab (ᛏ) 19:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The Assuwa etymology does seem more likely, since we are dealing with the etymology of an Ancient Greek term (Asia) applied chiefly to Anatolia. Alexander 007 19:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Though why is it first attested in Herodotus if it is from Assuwa. You might expect Homer to use it at least once in the Iliad or Odyssey. Alexander 007 19:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

that's an argumentum ex silentio now. why should Homer not use it if it was from Akkadian? dab (ᛏ) 19:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That Asios name is interesting (that name is in a section of Book II of the Iliad that I've often went over, and I remember the name now; in that section describing the Trojan allies who fought for Troy). I don't know if it supports the Assuwa etymology, but it makes a Semitic origin less likely for me.

Hmm, you know what, I don't think it's from Akkadian or any other Semitic language, nor is it connected with the "rising" concept. Unfortunately, many references quote that etymology. Alexander 007 20:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xia/Hsia

First of all, anonymous, you are wrong: that is not the most historically accepted (or in any way accepted) etymology of Asia, which is an Ancient Greek term most commonly derived from Akkadian asu. Second of all, I have seen no credible reference that supports the alleged Hsia etymology, so if you want to include it at all, provide a reference, because I have good references for the Akkadian etymology. In any case, you cannot say in a Wiki article that the Hsia etymology is "the most historically accepted", which is a plainly false statement.Alexander 007 18:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

a Chinese loanword in 5th century BC Greek? That would be quite singular. dab (ᛏ) 19:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asius

I was relying on [1]

Asius, called Phrygian leader, served in the same company as Helenus and Deiphobus, sons of King Priam of Troy. Asius was the son of Hyrtacus and Arisbe, Priam 1's first wife.

but you are right I should have checked the text. dab (ᛏ) 21:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's okay, I'm just a bit dismayed that we have to mention this widely-quoted Akkadian etymology, which is likely wrong even though it's still given by AHD and other sources. Nevertheless, Wiki should probably mention it alongside other referenced etymologies. Alexander 007 21:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I got a question though: do references support the idea that Assuwa may be derived from the Akkadian word? If not, maybe we should present them as two conflicting etymologies. Alexander 007 21:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

well, let's be agnostic and call them unrelated. I don't have a problem with the Semitic etymology being present, but I do also think it is unlikely. For one thing, from the point of view of the Akkadians, the sun certainly didn't set in western Anatolia. dab (ᛏ) 22:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] bubonic plague

Does anyone know how the plague started in Asia?

[edit] Islands west of the Asian mainland

The article Geography of Asia labels all the islands in the Aegean Sea as European, while on the other hand the article Transcontinental country assign those islands closest to the mainland of Asia Minor to Asia. Which is more correct? Which criteria are to be used (geography or politics or history or infrastructure...etc.)? --Big Adamsky 20:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

"and also describes a marsh as 461" -- what is that supposed to mean? (too lazy to figure it out myself just now). dab (ᛏ) 22:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asia is not a continent

We need to present this as the way Westerners thought about the world when they didn't know much about anything outside of Europe. Although "Asia" is used in many names and a common word, more properly, people are often referring to East Asia or Eurasian minus Europe, minus the Middle East (i.e. grab bag of stuff out to the East). As it stands, this article is crap.

Wikipedia takes on a world-view POV. Yo Mama is crap. Pirus 03:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually yo (your?) mama is crap (because she made you). I agree that Asia basically means all that land over there we don't know anything about. It is an obsolete and ridiculous term. So most people in the world think this or that, perhaps they are all wrong. Wikipedia doesn't reflect the world view, it reflects the truth, and this is the best opportunity to bring things forward.

[edit] Political/Geopolitical

Cite an example if you'd like. At major US universities, for example, there is often Middle East Studies, South Asian Studies, and East Asian Studies. There is no Asian studies because, now that us Westerners are a little more sophisticated, we don't dump everything we don't know about into a single grab bag anymore.

Okay, but it seems like you are trying to affect some kind of change in everyone's conventional thinking here, and wikipedia isn't supposed to be a vehicle for that... Asia as understood today and for centuries refers to the entire continent, as depicted on the map, if you have some different understanding you'd like everyone to accept, please make sure it isn't an original theory... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. You provide the citations if you want to move it beyond a historical concept to contemporary legitimacy as a continent. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's not just how people use words. It has to be backed up with scholarly sources or other reliable information.

I want to also add that you also need to have an international POV. I don't know where you're from, but your idea of Asia is a very particular one. It's a POV, and it should be recognized for what it is, not bandied about as if it's neutral. Even if you just think about how people use the word Asia, you realize that what people may define it as actually differs from how it's used. What do you think of when you hear the word Asians? Many people think of East Asians. So you need to recognize the problems and try to write the article from a NPOV.

[edit] "Traditional" and "Classic"

Ironically, it was not in the traditions of any Asian country to call Asia Asia. Classic (Greek) is not everyone else's classic (ie China's classic is... China). Thus we will be specific and clear in this article and call things what they really are--Greek/Westerner or whatever may be the case.

"Classical" as I used it, means as it was used in what is conventionally, and almost universally, called "The Classical World", including Greece and the Middle East. Greeks and Hellenes referred to the (originally Persian) lands East of Greece, as "Asia" -- whether they lived there themselves (as many of them did, hence "Asian Greeks") or whether they lived on the European side. This is the English wikipedia, not the Chinese, and that's what "Classical" means in English. As I stated before, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place or vehicle to try to engineer a drastic change in the standard perception everybody already has of things, whether you disagree with their perception or not... Asia is Asia, and anyone who says the term should suddenly stop being used, is coming out of left field; You actually ask for citation that Asia is still referred to as Asia; I don't think "Reader's Digest" (the widest circulation of any periodical in the USA) calls it anything different, just for starters... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tidying up intro

Hello folks. I've taken the liberty of tidying up quite a bit in the introduction of what Asia is and is not. Specifically, Asia not a "landmass", nor is it a "vague concept". I have also removed sentences repeating or rephrasing a preceding sentence. Enjoy! =] //Big Adamsky 20:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

These are not reasons for your edits. Asia is a much more vague concept than you think. You have to provide reasons or counter other people's reasons if you're going to make edits like this. What you find "obvious" is exactly what other people challenge.
I appreciate your effort in gathering links that divide or group the worlds regions differently according to their various purposes. But if we start with the first sentence, it should simply state the common usage and extent of what and where Asia is. Whether you consult encyclopedias or school books they do not begin by calling Asia a "vague concept". Anyone whose field of study or interest is geography knows that continent is an unfortunate term if analyzed etymologically, but - much like the word Anti-Semitism - it has slipped its way into general usage; its meaning is "a large body of land", some of which are connected by a land bridge, as is the case with Africa and Asia and with North and South America. Shifting sea levels, drifting tectonic plates or man-made canals do not radically change this notion. There are two alternative words used in the German language, namely Weltteil and Erdteil, which convey the meaning of a "part of the world/earth" while avoiding the connotations of the Latin-based term continent.
When BBC-world or other global media outlets choose to sort their news by regions such as "Middle East" (Northern Africa+Western Asia) and "Asia-Pacific" (East Asia+Australasia+Pacific islands), this makes sense since what goes on within these areas is often interlinked.
I agree that a discussion of how the continents (as referred to for example in the Olympic flag) is problematic and that their roots in Antiquity (capitalized) reveals a "Hellene-centric" world view. But that should be explained in a separate paragraph, not in the intro. There is no "vague concept" in what or where Asia is located; it is one of the continents, the one where most of us live; it begins at Asia Minor and ends at Chukotka; it is conjoined to Africa at the isthmus of Suez and to Europe along the Caucasus and the Urals; and it is surrounded by various bodies of water; and some islands are conventionally considered as belonging to Asia; and some states or peoples are conventionally grouped along with states and peoples outside of Asia. I hope this helps... Hakuna matata! :O) //Big Adamsky 14:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IMPT: Real use citations of Asia and why it's much more vague than you think

The following is an extensive list of citations for why Asia as a concept is 1) vague 2) not really used the way that people would normally define it. Although this is an English language wikipedia, it is not an American one nor a British one, and it should be written in a way that is as NPOV as possible, regardless of where the English reader is from. Let the citations begin:

1) NYT: http://www.nytimes.com Click on International, and you see that their division of news separates into 1) Asia Pacific and 2) Middle East.

2) WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com The second of the Big Two newspapers in the US; between them, they ARE US news. Here is a more interesting division of regions, with there being an Asia/Pacific category. But coexisting with Asia + Pacific is Middle East. So is the ME part of Asia or not? Unlike below,

3) CNN: http://www.cnn.com Asia edition focuses on East Asia inclusive of what is normally thought of as its own continent, Australia. The Middle East does not seem to be a market it caters to within any category. Because CNN is mainly a broadcast medium, these categorizations probably have a lot to do with time zones. Still, this is how the word is ACTUALLY being used by one of the most popular English language tv stations in the entire world.

3) AskAsia.com Check maps at: http://www.askasia.org/teachers/Instructional_Resources/Materials/Maps/index.htm Notice how Russia doesn't seem to really be included. Notice also that the Middle East is in there but it's not--a lot of it is cutoff. From these maps, if we say what we see clearly depicted in all maps is Asia, then the western part of the ME doesn't appear to be a part of Asia.

4) University of Texas library maps. U of T is one of the largest universities in the US, if not the largest: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/asia_pol00.jpg Notice first of all, that labelling it Asia is not good enough. They label that category of maps Middle East and Asia. This particular map is only of Asia and guess what--Russia is included, but the Middle East, from the western border of Iran and west is excluded.

5) Asia society: http://www.asiasociety.org/about/ They are one of the foremost organizations dedicated to educating people about Asia-Pacific, which, interestingly enough, also only includes countries up to Iran. It does not include the Middle East in general.

6) Asia Development Bank: http://www.adb.org/Countries/default.asp They don't include the ME as part of Asia as well, though with so many oil rich countries, admittedly, they might not think they need any help.

This is just for starters. Basic lessons: The ME doesn't apparently get included in Asia much of the time. Russia has quasi-inclusion status as well. Asia is clearly vague and clearly a weak concept in that people use it many times to mean East Asia + South Asia + Southeast Asia. No Middle East.

Here's an additional example: http://usembassy.state.gov/ It's really questionable how salient this traditional breakdown of continents is. The US state dept breaks down embassy listings into Americas, East Asia and Pacific, South Asia, Europe, Eurasia, and Africa. Interesting right?

[edit] Responses

Unfortunately, despite everything above, the intro is now inaccurate and asserts only one POV that is inconsistent with other citable information. If at all, this should coexist with other definitions, if applicable, and not prevail (e.g., now there's no mention of continent at all in intro). For example, two dictionaries – Oxford and Webster's – both list and reckon seven continents: Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Feel free to verify this in those and other publications. Of course, other definitions are based on culture, geology, seismology, ecology, et al. To that end, I will be making editions that restore prior edits and embrace the ambiguity, not just the uncited 'concept' stated therein. E Pluribus Anthony 12:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking up the real world use of words is a way of verifying whether a dictionary is actually correct or not. Dictionaries are like molasses--slow. That's where a project like wikipedia shines. Words that should've made the dictionary a long time ago are often many years late. You have to be specific with why the above is dismissable. The current intro does embrace ambiguity (it says that it is so), while at the same time, giving the old staid dictionary definition. Merriam Webster for example, only mentions the Ural Mountains, so there's no consensus that the other borders (west of Black Sea) are clear.
Yes: however, using these sources to substantiate solitary assertions that Asia is a "concept" and not a continent is POV and should not supercede information otherwise. Have you cited any source that states Asia is noted as a "concept"? You are asserting this viewpoint despite other references: I've cited dictionaries that challenge your position, but can also cite Britannica or any number of publications and atlas that further verify my position and elaborate on appropriate definitions. I've made editions to better balance the ambiguity of the relevant definitions, but please discuss and garner consensus before editing substantially otherwise. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony 14:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The intro does not say that it is a concept. This is a moot point. It says that it is a continent now. No need to cite what NPOV is. I'm familiar.
I beg to differ and it's not moot. If you invoke what NPOV is, don't make make edits that are clearly POV, cannot be verified, and challenge cited definitions; they'll be corrected. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a democracy. E Pluribus Anthony 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Wiki is not a democracy because sometimes the masses are wrong--in this case, you're the masses that's wrong. Excuse me for pointing out that "continents are concepts" was a sentence that I did not insert and has been long in this article. Further, you didn't make a correction to that part of the sentence. I can only conclude that you are targetting my changes specifically for no reason. Saying that it is a concept of a continent is consistent with that sentence that follows. How come you didn't edit that sentence then?
I beg to differ for numerous reasons. One: from the get-go, you have contended that Asia is a vague "concept", superceding traditional notions and definitions (cited, verifiable, etc.) of Asia as a continent. I do not deny that continents are concepts (as already stated), but you are rebuilding the intro to satisfy your POV and further promoting vagary. I appreciate attempts to open up the intro, but (two) your other edits are badly structured (IMHO) and neither here nor there. Three: you are likely wrong (without "mass" support), as your edits were reverted by one other during our discourse. Until you can demonstrate why your viewpoint should prevail, I'll make edits (and reverts, if necessary) that more equitably reflect real definitions. Good day. E Pluribus Anthony 14:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
User:61.59.83.208, I think your using large newspapers' coverage zones or international organizations membership as examples of how one ought to delimit Asia fails to prove anything whatsoever. The European and African Unions cannot define the extent of their nominal continents simply by outlining the combined territory of their current member states.
I still dislike the insistence that there is somehow something "vague" over the name or location or extent of the continents ("It is sometimes unclear what Asia precisely consists of"). There is no confusion - Arabia, Anatolia and Sinai are no less "Asian" than Korea, Kamchatka or Malaya. If someone feels that it is a bad thing that the continents' names are all from either Greek, Latin or Italian, then that is merely a personal opinion; but it doesn't really change where or what Asia is (just look it up).
I, like fellow geography editor E.P.Anthony, intend to rectify some more on the intro later on, and also to remove/shorten those parts that just repeat the contents of a previous sentence. I see no reason why certain bodies of water west of Asia should be explicitly mentioned; obviously the coastline defines the outline except along the two mountain ranges, the river and the isthmus already mentioned. There is no mention of the Bering strait or the Wallace line in the article.
Also, I do wish you would start signing and dating your postings, even if you prefer to remain just a number. //Big Adamsky 17:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem isn't the type of name. The problem is that Asia's definition is mostly about what it's not--it's not Europe. This is how we arrive at the terms near east, middle east, and far east--all extremely Eurocentric and POV. Since wikipedia isn't a democracy, I don't think it matters who's against me as long as I'm on the side of reason.
BTW, you also setup a straw man argument. I didn't only list political organizations. Most prominent are the media listings, whose job is to DESCRIBE, not to define the world. So those are legitimately real world uses. Dictionaries are supposed to get their definitions from how people use the words (have you ever opened something like OED? it has tons and tons of citations), so a dictionary can be wrong if you have a reputable example of how it is used differently.
I believe the current edition is accurate and, yet, reflects the ambiguity of the definitions: it is descriptive and presciptive. Also note it is an introduction and should, thus, be breif: additional elaboration, if needed, can occur in a dedicated section later in the article ... Thanks for the input. E Pluribus Anthony 20:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a good point anonymous. Many citations will tell you that there are different definitions for Asia. Only presenting one point of view violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy by only presenting one point of view where multiple credible sources exist.--DarkTea 12:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classic/traditional Turkey

I want to point out that conservative arguments that say the concept of Asia is one that is derived from antiquity are really weak. Asia Minor used to be basically Turkey. But Turkey today is often considered a part of Europe (joining the EU)!

To have a more global perspective is surely one of the goals of an internet encyclopedia, especially one which can be read by anyone who understands the language all over the world. Thus we can very easily clarify what traditional means and what classical means. Classical Greek/Classical Roman/traditionally in the West are all very easy clarifications. If it's so easy, why not use it? It helps to clear up any confusion (classical can mean Greek/Roman/old Europe).

Ok, can we please stop using Antiquity, which itself is just a definitional page that disambuiates between several definitions? It is clearly classical GREECE in this case. No need to muck things up for the reader.

Also, please say WEST. It is traditionally defined this way in the WEST. We make remarks like this further down in the article--why do we not extend the same courtesy to the intro?

For reasons alluded to above, these are POV assertions that fly in the face of other sources: by many definitions, Turkey (once known largely as Asia Minor) is both a part of Asia and Europe, in a physiogeographic and geopolitical sense (et al.). In addition, Asia also has etymological roots from the Near East or Middle East, so Antiquity is accurate and Classical Greek less so. And as for West, one could argue that we should remove notations of West further in the article; in fact, reiterating these viewpoints in the article or ones contrary to it implies an Eastern bias. To that end, I will thoroughly peruse and edit the article to rectify perceived POV. E Pluribus Anthony 16:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Um... 1) antiquity almost never means Near East or Middle East so if that's the case, then the language is just wrong. 2) How is that an Eastern bias to point out that this idea has its origins in the West? That makes no sense. It's bias NOT to recognize that in places like Russia and Japan, people don't agree with this scheme of naming continents. Not recognizing that other views exist or that a particular view belongs to a particular group (and hence is not universal) is POV. I'll hold out that you still have some legitimate reasoning out there somewhere, but it hasn't been explained yet.

The current edition reads fine. I will respond, only to clarify: (1) the prior edition indicated the more general Antiquity (which embraces more than Greece and Rome) and your later edit (erroneously) indicated only ancient Greece. (2) East-vs.-West usage isn't inherently POV, but only including one or the other is; this occurs later in the article, for both East and West. All such mentions should be balanced with a NPOV. No accusation intended, but I'll soon make edits that better balance the numerous views and mentions later in the article.

As well: 'please sign your comments! Your edits won't be treated with as much skepticism if we can put a name to them. :) Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 20:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Analogy

"Continents are concepts of human geography (i.e., landscapes and landforms as interpreted by humans), similar to what "supercontinents" and other landmasses are to physical geography, and definitions may vary"

Trying to explain a concept with an even more unlikely understood concept is asking for trouble. If the reader doesnt' know what human geography is, they might not know what a supercontinent is either. Being direct and just saying it's not a concept out of geology or physical geography is much clearer.-314

Hey: that seems fine! That text predates my edits to it, so I applaud you for clarifying it.  :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I thank you for recognizing my work. I hope we can find other points of consensus.

[edit] Cultures of the World

Would you consider contributing? Or how about voting for it as collaboration of the week for this new but important article.--Culturesoftheworld 19:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by DLinth, User:24.161.41.93, User:4.155.87.40, User:61.59.83.208, User:169.253.4.21 and User:4.155.250.113

I have to say that I find the edits on articles relating to Asia, Europe, Eurasia and Countries in both Asia and Europe to be lacking in NPOV. They strike me as much more prescriptive, dogmatic and normative than what is reasonable for a contentious or debatable topic like this. These users leave no room for alternative views with phrases such as "unsupportable delineations", "must necessarily", "by some undefined path", "now accepted worldwide", "the experts concur" and "side being ill-defined". And the recent edit displays sources smack in the middle of the text and not placed along with the other sources provided. Also, the namedropping of places like Morocco and New Zealand seems utterly out-of-place and irrelevant to the Caucasus-Urals dividing line. Unless something better is produced, either by DLinth or another user, I will revert to a more acceptable version and we can move on from there. Please discuss! :] //Big Adamsky 19:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes; these repeated POV edits are irksome. E Pluribus Anthony 23:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asia/Asian

Let clear this. Historically, ancient European considered that Europe and Asia are separate "continent" in term of physical geography. We are no longer live in medieval era when people thought that the earth is flat. And Europe=continent isn't kosher in term of this definition. The current geography shifted the definition to political, cultural, historical category. However, to define "continent" in term of human geography, i.e. socio, political, historical identity, is problematic in term of linguistic because continent is a geological term. The correct linguistic usage is "region" rather than "continent". At least, in Japan, that is how Europe is refere to. But let say we go along with the definition used in (Western) human geography, and call Europe as a continent. Fine. But then this cause a problem if we apply it to "Asia". There is nothing to definie "Asia" in term of ethinic, sociological, political, historical identity. Some stated in this page that the current geography subcategorise Asia into East (Orient), South (British India), Central (Stans) and West Asia (Arabia/Presia?) but this isn't a definite solution unless each "region" is proclaimed as a continent to have consistency with Europe's status as "continent". Plus, human geography do inded treat each region as distinct, implicitly confering the definition of cotinent. Most modern geography book do mention (dodge) this problem and always state that Asia/Europe is a conventional or historical term. Moreover, confusion already exist in term of linguistic usage of "Asian" in various European language and different version of English. Because a category imply homogenity, which isn't a case here, "Asian" always refer to a subcategory of "Asia". I'm not going to push this as a nuetral POV however, to delete any edit which state this "POV" is a violation of NPOV policy when it is presented as a "view". And it is obvious that this will become a PC issue so censorship is pointless and reactionary. It is merely delaying the inevitable. FWBOarticle 10:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about the capitals?

In the table with the name, flag, population, etc. of each asian country, the capitals are missing.

The same table is included under "Europe", "Africa", "North America" and "South America" but showing the corresponding capitals, which is very useful info.

Jmried

Hi! I created the other tables and, don't worry, I'm working on ones for Asia and (for lack of better term) Oceania. I'll have these up in the next few days. Stay tuned! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Tada! I've recently added a table of Asian countries and territories. I hope it is useful.
As well while sources vary, the UN scheme for geographic subregions – which is used for all other continental tables in Wp – places Iran in the region of Southern Asia (see here for the actual classification and entries). This does not deny that it is in the Middle East or elsewhere but merely exhibits a systematic way of organising all territories in Wp. Please bear this in mind before insinuating edits or moving territories in the table (which will be edited or reverted judiciously). Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry

I don't want to continue this, you as a wikipedia administrator should decide, i am sorry



Well, ugly and uncivilized or not, the UN does place Iran in a cluster of states it refers to as Southern Asia (not South Asia). Many others (including myself) would call Iran a Middle Eastern state, although not its "heart". (Btw applauds to EPA for his legwork!) //Big Adamsky 00:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This is correct anon. Iran is a cultural kin to Iraq. They are not part of the subcontinent. Hats off to such a cogent and bold assertion.--DarkTea

[edit] how long's this thing been tagged for cleanup?

the tag looks bad. let's take it off unless someone knows why it was tagged in the first place. OscarMeyerPeener. 02:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've nixed the tag. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Regions

It seems like the text under regions is somewhat redundant with the table. Maybe the info could be consolidated somehow. Maurreen 02:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As the originator of tables for each of the continental/regional articles, I agree ... and Wikipedians have said just as well with the other continents/tables (e.g., Oceania and Africa). However, I've been somewhat reluctant to nix the list since it contains some details – particularly regarding political status – that, if carried into the tables, would likely overload them. Perhaps I should merely add a column to the tables and/or replace the population density column (which is arguably neither here nor there) with the information? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Pending a groundswell of opposition, I've since nixed the redundant list of territories which is essentially duplicated in the table; I've not detailed the political status of the various territories in the table but might later. Of course, the article (and similar continental/regional articles) can stand for some reorganisation (e.g., re-ordering of sxns) for consistency. There you go! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. To avoid losing all the info in the list completely, I copied the entire section to the geography article.
Also, I hate to be difficult, but now the table is overlapping the images. Does anyone else see that, or is it just me? Maurreen 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the information to the subarticle; makes sense. I think the list can be pruned or brought inline with the content in the table somehow, though.
As well, I'm not experiencing the overlap you are; this arrangement is also repeated in the Africa article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entry on Jammu & Kashmir deleted

See talk on Talk:South_Asia#Inclusion_of_Kashmir_as_a_separate_entity_Disputed gunslotsofguns 09:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nakhichevan as a separate entity

Hi. Why is the autonomous republic of Nakhichevan listed as an entity separate from Azerbaijan in the table? The republic is an integral part of Azerbaijan, in the same way that, say, Chechnya or Mari El are republics of Russia. For this reason, it should not be listed separately. Ronline ✉ 12:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello! It's listed separately because it's an exclave (separate from the bulk of Azerbaijan), which is clearly stated in the relevant note, not out of any implication of sovereignty. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say it's particularly clearly stated, since it first states that Azerbaijan is a transcontinental country, etc. Also, even if it's an exclave, what's the point of listing it separately? Both Azerbaijan proper and Nakhichevan are partially in Asia, so I don't see the point of listing them partially. Or is Nakhichevan totally in Asia, or significantly different in geography to Azerbaijan? Ronline ✉ 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Given that Nakhichevan is a sizeable exclave, I'm unsure what the challenge is here. And if you really wanted to split hairs: in toto, the country is a transcontinental one. Azerbaijan proper is in the Caucasus (region), straddling the Caucasus Mountains, and arguably is in both Europe and Asia; Nakhichevan (south of Armenia) is solely in the Transcaucasus and (just) in Asia. And for more clarity, which I think is unnecessary, anyone can edit the note. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, Nakhichevan is an exclave and the footnote does note it. But should exclaves of a country that are in the same continent as the mother country have their own listings? East Timor has an exclave on the west side of Timor Island, but it's not listed. And in the "North America" wiki entry Alaska does not have a separate listing even though it's an exclave like Nakhichevan.Inkan1969 13:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Might as well give Warzistan, Palestine and Tibet and all other notable autonomous regions entries if you're going to push it like that.Therequiembellishere 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I agree: there is no reason to list this exclave separately unless we do so for other countries too, and I think that could get messy. Unless someone (else) objects, I will consolidate the two entries for Azerbaijan into a single one. Quizatz Haderach 02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Territories and regions

I think this should be fixed. Under the table of countries for "Asia", there is a catagory of "Eastern Europe". As if this isn't wrong enough, Russia (the one country for this catagory) has only statistics for Asia. So, under the catagory of "Eastern Europe" there are statistics not for Eastern Europe, but Asia.

Same thing with "Northern Africa"Ajnosek 17:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, Russia is now under Northern Asia and Egypt is now part of Western Asia

[edit] Cyprus belongs to Europe

Like all other islands in the Mediterranean, Cyprus belongs to Europe, not Asia.

See the UN map in the references below the table. Also not all Mediterranean islands are geographicaly european... Armenia and Cyprus are mentioned in the notes as "sociopoliticaly connected with Europe", but because they don't have european TERRITORY - their stats are included in the Asia table, not the Europe table... Alinor 14:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
See also discussions on the Europe talk page and multiple other wikipedia discussion pages...

[edit] Total Density

Someone help! I added East Timor w/ a population desity of 69 people per km² and i dont know how to average it all up for the density. I've already added the population and area to the totals so you don't have to worry about that, but will somebody help do the density?71.99.110.7 08:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] japanese or chinese word for asia

we have the etymology of the word used in European language, but what word is used for the continent in the major Asian languages like Chinese or Japanese and their etymologies?--Sonjaaa 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think "Asia" is somewhat of a European concept, thought to differ from Europe somewhat as a unity. In Asia, there doesn't seem to be any traditional ideas of "Asia" as a unity, and the word is often borrowed from European languages, as in Japanese and Korean. Please expand my answer as you see fit. 惑乱 分からん 10:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] asia

what is the head of government

Eh? Asia doesn't have a single government. Every state has its own government. Some of the most powerful states in Asia probably include China, India, Russia and Japan (in no particular order). 惑乱 分からん 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shinto: Mythology or Religion?

Shinto and its offshoot Oomoto are both listed under Mythologies, while Shinto is listed again under Religions. Shouldn't Oomoto be moved under Shinto in Religions, and Shinto be deleted from Mythologies?

[edit] demonymy

The title is in fact better than "Asian people" since the section doesn't deal with ethnography but with terminology. I tried "'Asian' as a demonym", hoping it sounds less 'scary', a title that perfectly describes the section's content. dab (ᛏ) 13:21, 3 October dedicated to Ms. Roberson-Brown & Ms. Brooks

[edit] Egypt

Eypt is in Africa, not Asia.

Not all of it - Sinai is considered to be geographically in Asia. --Howard the Duck 09:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course Egypt is not in Asia. You are correct anonymous signer.--DarkTea 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No he is not correct user, the Siani Peninsula is geographically in Asia.Therequiembellishere 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Even as the Sinai peninsula is in Asia Egypt is an african nation check the Egpyt page. It clearly defines it as a northern african state. It should be removed. I'm contesting this bec the citation is obscure. Prove that there is enough political motivation and references that Egypt is indeed considered a transcontinental nation. Same goes with Cyprus this shuold be deleted as I can see no text books including cyprus in most Asian History texts --–  Daimengrui  talk  20:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iran

I am going to change the category Iran has been put in. Iran is considered to be In the UN's Greater South Asia. Anyways that are is called Indian Subcontinent and Iranians are not Indians. But Iran is in Southwest Asia/western Asia. Many books, people and the United Nations say this. Wikilo12 02:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously why is Iran in South Asia when it is completely in the middle east. Wikilo12 02:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have moved it back: the UN scheme for countries/regions, which is used for other continent articles (e.g., Europe), clearly places Iran in Southern Asia, not Western Asia ... though I acknowledge this is rather common. Moreover, note that South(ern) Asia, Indian subcontinent, West(ern) Asia, and Middle East are not synonymous. Psychlopaedist 19:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
For one, the Middle East is part of Asia. 74.38.35.171 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This is comepletely right. The Middle East is not part of Asia. Please register an account on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark Tichondrias (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
The Middle East IS part of Asia, the Continent. I've never heard of a continent called "The Middle East". A region called the Middle East, sure, but not a continent. Should we have the article discuss "Asia the Continent" versus "Asia the Region", the latter of which seems more coincident with Asia-Pacific (AP) (often but not always excluding Australasia) and not Asia the Continent? 74.38.35.171 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I learned that iran was in Southern Asia.Therequiembellishere 19:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus

Why is Cyprus being removed from the article? I don't see any explanation.[2][3] -Will Beback · † · 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably being moved due to wilful/ignorant European inclusionism, I gather. Psychlopaedist 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect listing on Russian Population and Area

Currently Russia is listed as having 39,129,729 number of people, that's too little. As for land size it is listed as 13,115,200 km2. According to CIA world factbook, as of July 2006, the population estimate is 142,893,540 and land size is, total: 17,075,200 km2, land: 16,995,800 km2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.58.1.6 (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

The area and population refers to Asian territory, that is presumably Russia east of the Urals. --Howard the Duck 09:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sometimes/always Asia map

Was that ridiculous map decided upon, or is it vandalism? | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know. I have reverted this and the parallel changes to the table below. The editor who introduced these substantial changes to the article did so without any sort of discussion/consensus and has tried to do it before, sometimes anonymously (from what I can tell). Corticopia 05:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I have cited these viewpoints from credible sources, so Wikipedia:Neutral point of view demands their points of view be heard.--DarkTea 11:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
If you check past discussions, multiple anons have agreed with me. Your arguments that this article should only present one point of view are the minority.--DarkTea 12:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have just encouraged the anonymous posters User:74.38.35.171, User:213.221.46.242, User:80.111.191.155 and User:74.38.35.171 who agree with me to register accounts with the hope that this article will express the ideals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. These anons express the following views (not all from the same person): the Middle East to not be part of Asia, Iran is not part of the subcontinent and Asia is a European construct without global recognition. Hopefully, we will see the needed changes on this article.--DarkTea 13:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What bias? Even more editors -- registered and not, those who have commented and not (by mere virtue of not making said changes) -- seem to be satisfied with the original content. So far: I have reverted you, as has another editor since, and the editor who began this section was quite clear in stating that the top map was "ridiculous." You are the only editor advocating for such massive change. As well: you did not discuss such substantial changes beforehand. In addition: you just apparently notified us that you would be 'stacking the deck' (e.g., meatpuppetry) which is highly discouraged. I believe anonymous edits have previously been made to support your versions, and I wonder about their source. Anyhow, before you say that your maps/content should remain because they are sourced and impartial, this is not to the exclusion of current content: I'm sure a multitude of additional sources can be provided to support the current content; I can add these if necessary. Corticopia 17:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
These accusations dodge the fact that seven credible citations were removed with for no legitimate reason. I never advocated the use of sock puppets. I encouraged the anonymous IPs to register who agreed with me. The anonymous editors agree with me because they know the Middle East is not part of Asia along with the United States government foreign relations agency, US newspapers and the British Broadcast agency. Yes, many people agree with me, but unfortuneately the ones who spoke their minds are anonynmous. It is very apparant that the numerous citations I have added to support my position have been willfully removed for no apparant reason. Could you tell me why citations from the US government, US news agencies, UK news agencies and the Australian government do not constitute credible sources?--DarkTea 10:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing is being dodged: you are placing undue weight on a particular viewpoint despite prevailing legitimate content to the contrary, and you have previously attempted to 'refactor' this article with that viewpoint. Even one of the anons whom you've cited to support this perspective does not. Consult a common dictionary or encyclopedia [4], for example, and none ascribe the definitions to 'Asia' that you are promoting; however, they may allude to its use more as a "geographic term than a homogeneous continent", which this article already addresses. The adjective 'Asian', though, may be another matter. As well: how do you qualify 'mostly', 'rarely', etc.? These seem to be original assessments to me. Anyhow, feel free to add verifiable content to this article or appropriate subarticles, but any attempt to insinuate "ridiculous" content in place of current legitimate content as before or place undue weight on this content will be corrected. Corticopia 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Part of the middle east (that is not part of Africa) is part of asia and no government in there has ever denied this (except maybe Israel). We have asian games, asian football(soccer) federation etc and all these countries are part of it. In fact last year's asian games was held there. Britain and US consider this whole region (middle east, including african countries) as a different entity for their foreign policy stuff. In my country India we (people and the government) believe that middle east (except african part) is asian and I have not met anybody from this region ever denying it. Leotolstoy 14:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hosting the olympic games does not make a nation consider itself part of Olympia. Just because India wanted to organize a sporting tournament called the "Asian games" and later on the Middle East wanted to host the event in their homeland does not mean they also consider themselves to be part of Asia. I would not expect them to change the name of the event as I would not expect the Olympic games to take on the name of its host country. --DarkTea 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The middle east is always considered Asia, due to its geographical location. The geographical definition is the NPOV. PioKuz4 15:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In what other "definitions" middle east is not asia?. Leotolstoy 15:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'd like to know. PioKuz4 19:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of it not being Asia, and it's on the Asian continent (geologically and geographically), so I don't know why this is mentioned in the image. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Me neither. I'm totally mystified as to why he thinks I think it is "not" a part of Asia. 74.38.35.171 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There has been no original research or undue weight, but only a balanced reporting of the other side's viewpoint as demanded by the NPOV policy. It is not original research to report that the US governmment's foreign relations, the Australian government, US news agencies and the British Broadcasting agency do not consider the Middle East to be part of Asia. These credible assertions have all been cited. This is not an issue of whether or not User:Corticopia's POV has more supporters among Wikipedians. The NPOV policy says all credible sides must be presented. The undue weight policy says to not give undue weight to minority opinions. Well, multiple governments and news agencies do not constitute minority opinions.DarkTea 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I have found more maps that agree with the me.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] I think it is now clear the point of view that the Middle East is not part of Asia is widely held. It is perfectly clear what the NPOV policy demands.--DarkTea 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi DarkTree, I dont think any of these websites try to be authentic source of demarcation of continents. First map does not have pakistan and a bunch of other countries AND it is a wine company website!!. Second one is a travel website and this map is their travel zones (Again, I can point out a hundred mistakes in this map). Same with the third... I can go on and on. The point is none of these "proofs" are authentic enough to shown that middle east is not a part of Asia. Please post a link that is official (most probably from a government website or a reputable organization). Leotolstoy 02:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You have just proven that they are credible sources. Yes, some people do not consider Pakistan to be part of Asia. Yes, it is the travel website and a wine company, but could you shoot down the other sources? The Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean sources are the most credible as they are actually Asians unlike the United Nations run by Europeans. It is absurd that the only source this article has been using to define Asia isn't even part of Asia. I wonder if on the Japanese-language Wikipedia they have a Japanese organization define the boundaries of Europe rather than listening to Europe itself? I already brought up governmental sources from the US and Australia whereas the only opposition to these sources has been a single United Nations source. Really, in all fairness my point of view should have been accepted by the NPOV policy when I had seven sources to your one source, but when I find you think twenty-seven sources vs. your one source is not enough, I question the value of Wikipedia policy. What good is a tried and true policy if a bunch of Wikipedians choose to flagrantly violate it?--DarkTea 02:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
And you alone, against consensus, support said these changes. Yes: it is clear what this article requires -- and that is not your singular "ridiculous" version. Corticopia 03:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It is also explicitly stated in the WP:CON policy that it doesn't override the greater interest of the WP:NPOV policy.--DarkTea 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well then, you must demonstrate that your intepretation deserves mention above and beyond what the article already notes regarding this (last paragraph of 'Definitions and boundaries') ... and you haven't yet. Corticopia 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
My POV deserves mention because many if not most sources agree with it. The current POV on the article is actually the European-Union bias POV. I think the POV that needs to be justified is the current POV on the article which is rooted in one source.--DarkTea 04:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Just one source? Straw man -- the alternate perspective is already given due weight. In any event, additional sources will follow. Corticopia 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not a straw man. I know that there are other sources that support that point of view, but as it stands only one source is backing it. I never said only one source exists that could back it.--DarkTea 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's a straw man: you assume that your arguably original perspective about the topic, around which you've previously tried to refactor this article, should usurp other content in the article which can also be enhanced through additional sourcing. I see a number of sources supporting the current content and will add others. Anyhow, others may wish to continue this discussion, but I do not. Corticopia 04:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Do you even know what the no original research policy means? It demands users not synthesize new theories on Wikipedia. Your baseless accusations grounded on misinterpretation of policy will not win you the argument and will only derail the progress of this fine encyclopedia.--DarkTea 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

<reindent>Yes: this is getting as ridiculous as your edits have been; these have derailed progress more than anything else. I -- and apparently others -- are unconvinced of your refactoring of content and intentions (which convey an original perspective of what Asia is or Asians are and how rarely or not these terms are used), despite other reputable content to the contrary -- which is supported by a variety of reputable publications: five sources, including Britannica (map) Merriam-Webster Atlas of Canada National Geographic, et al. You might want to think twice about sparring regarding reliable sources. This discussion is ended. Corticopia 18:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You still don't appear to understand the original research policy. The policy does not mean that the POV you personally disagree with should not be on the article. It means that unverifiable theories can't be added. Don't I still have twenty-seven independent, credible and multinational sources backing up my POV? It doesn't matter that you have found six more sources to back up your POV, because I never was disputing whether or not your POV can be sourced. Your ability to source your POV does not detract from the verifiability of my POV.--DarkTea 04:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You still don't appear to understand that you continue to use a straw man to push your "ridiculous" edits/content on the rest of us, and subsequent commentary. I can provide far more citations to corroborate the ones provided and other content in the article, but I needn't: your POV is already given due weight in the article and you cannot continually insist that your 27 'sources' (most of which are of dubious/no authority) usurp others. And your framing/synthesis of the content is original research, because you have not qualified nor sourced how and why the terms are as prevalent (e.g., rarely, sometimes) as you would have us believe. Anyhow: I've had enough of this: others can engage you on this if they wish, but I will not. Corticopia 13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I just have one last comment here. Search for US map in google images. You will get at least 7 (out of 20 images) in first page without alaska. Does that means Alaska is not a part of US?. If this can happen to a well defined country what do you think will happen to a fairly poorly defined continent?. Leotolstoy 13:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)\
If you believe in the easy falibility of maps, why do you support the map with a single citation vs. the map with twenty-seven citations backing it? If maps are as fallible as you would conclude, then it is far safer to go with the map with the most citations backing it.--DarkTea 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at this DT. The Middle East isn't just considered part of Asia, Europe and Africa sometimes are too. Why don't we just include a map of the world, and put "sometimes considered Asia" on the entire Eastern Hemisphere, and "rarely considered Asia" on the Western? There are sources that consider the Americas part of Asia (say, Christopher Columbus :). Then again, India is a geologically a continent all on it's own; should we say, "not really Asia, but considered part of it"? On the other hand, the Middle East is part of Asia geologically, but you claim it isn't. · AO Talk 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology?

I noticed that in the "Etymology" section, there is no mention of the Greek mythological figure Asia, or Clymene. Of course, where this name comes from in itself is still a good question, but I find it odd that there is no mention of this myth. 74.38.35.171 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russia and Turkey

Russia and Turkey are European countries and no parts of Asia at all despite bordering it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon Doh (talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Incorrect according to a number of viewpoints, notably the intro of this article. Corticopia 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Asia does not exist and you argue and argue. You remind me of the religious of old, debating the nature of Christ's body at the mass.

[edit] Ethymology of Asia

Asia is an Indo-European word which comes from ide Aus- 'rising, dawning' (Latvian aust 'to rise (about sun), to dawn', ide Ausārā 'morning blaze, dawn, sunrise', Latin Aurōra (s>r change), Latvian ausma, austra). So Asia is shortened form of Ausiā 'sunrise land'. Roberts7 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/s/i/Talk%7EAsia_8030.html"