Talk:Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 20, 2005.
WikiProject Geography
Geography Portal

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.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1/Archive 2

Contents

[edit] ...

Yeah guys, "The most popular religion in the world has entered Asia including the middle east." Doesn't sound very NPOV like...

omg asia is like the coolest thing ever! omg i am like so like in love —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.75.145 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Christianity entered Asia sometime around AD 226"... I believe it was started in asia =) --Jojohippo 08:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, this would be a problem, considered the Promised Land is part of Asia. I wonder what part of Asia they're talking about... The Evil Spartan 19:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah i agree with them. how would it have "entered" Asia after it started, if it starte there?--- klenole —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wrong population data

In the UN geoscheme based chart, transcontinental countries such as Russia and Georgia have partial pupulations. could you provide sources of where you got those exact numbers from ? I strongly believe that they are not accurate. In Europe page for example, they are mentioned both as in Europe and asia and notes explain that the whole population was included probably because they could not provide sources for them,while this page does not say anything about them.--UltioUltionis (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive changes to article

While I can't claim to be an authority on the region, it does seem that the large-scale changes Darktea is making should be discussed first. I have reverted back to a version by Corticopia. --Ckatzchatspy 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:TOPIC says to have the article's contents about its topic, but not vaguely related to its topic. The section on Asian people culture is off topic, because the article's topic is the continent.--00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That is true: some of the changes you've made are somewhat agreeable, but some are not. And please remember that I do appreciate that you may have a viewpoint, and a cited one (or melange) at that, regarding different interpretations of Asia and, particularly, Asian -- after all, my grandfather is from Lebanon, but I do not consider myself Asian. However, this content must be dealt with equitably and, especially with regard to Asia and Asian, some of your editions/refactoring have been excessive or outright bullox. Also do not try to justify en masse content editions, which arguably may be contrary to consensus (since the content has been in place for some time) by oversimplifying and insinuating policy at every step. I will peruse the article/changes shortly, will restore contents if needed, and others should do the same. Corticopia 02:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should include two sections. It should include a section for definitions of Asia and a section for Asia's etymology. It should not include the off WP:TOPIC section on Asian people or culture----DarkTea 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I totally disagree -- this is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia (read the definition), and this article should be as comprehensive as possible, harking of articles for other continents (e.g., Europe, South America) with sections about geography (physiography, human geo), history, and the whole she-bang. Look at the Britannica entry for Asia -- comprising 122 pages online, it is not as limited as you would have us believe. Why is it that you continue to deprecate this wholly valid concept in favour of your more nebulous viewpoint? Corticopia 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That is Argumentum ad populum. Just because the other continental articles do not follow WP:TOPIC does not mean this article must follow suite. On your second point, I find it laughable that you link to the Wikipedia article about an encyclopedia or link to other online encyclopedias as if they are relevant. Only Wikipedia policy is relevant such as WP:TOPIC, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, etc.----DarkTea 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No: what other reliable publications do and contain is directly relevant to the topic at hand -- I will take their framing of content over yours any day. And you seem to be misguided about the very policies you invoke. Instead of attempting to source an image or map or tag it as unsourced, for example, images which are otherwise not problematic, you remove them or add personal concoctions. Despite overwhelming evidence, you continue to attempt to whittle down and deprecate content to suit your needs. I find it even more laughable that you persist in pushing a viewpoint after so long despite little or no consensus to do so -- correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no one coming to your defense. You are also hypocritical: you provide 20+ 'sources', almost all of which are half-ass (not to mention some of which some of us can't verify since they are not in English), yet discredit reliable publications that detail the concept of Asia at length. Whatever -- I'm done with you. Let me put it this way: if you continue to insinuate your subjective viewpoint onto this article and disrupt, your edits will be reverted en masse and you will be dealt with administratively. And I will comment hereafter only when necessary. Corticopia 02:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:V means verify sources. It does not mean look and see the format of other encyclopedias, then override Wikipedia policy. You continue to talk about POV as if you don't understand the policy. WP:NPOV does not mean no POV. It means neutral POV. It appears that the POV you favor is already in the article. The other POV is very notable. I have found multiple maps of the current functional definition of Asia. Your gripe is clearly not about policy, because I have listed multiple definitions of Asia that can be WP:V. It appears that your arguments for your case is not based on policy at all.----DarkTea 07:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


When policy doesn't suite you, you make fallacious arguments. Your appeal to tradition was that this article is clearly fine, because it has stood in its current condition for some time. Your argumentum ad populum was to point out that the article on Europe and South America brake WP:TOPIC, so this article can too. Your argumentum ad baculum is that you threaten to tell the admins on me. Unfortunately for your case, you have mustered up no policy-based objections to my edits.----DarkTea 07:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Your favorite misunderstanding of policy is WP:CON. It is as if you believe the whole set of policies boils down to a vote. You say, that you "see no one coming to your (Dark Tea's) defense". Read the Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions. It says that an exception is "Foundation Issues" which includes WP:NPOV. It turns out that your claim of concensus won't let you brake WP:NPOV.----DarkTea 08:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Like before, you simply claim, "I'm done with you". When you cannot argue your case based on policy, you simply deride the opponent's argument as "subjective" or call them a hypocrite. I wish it was that simple for me. If that were the case, I could simply call the other editor's argument foolish and discontinue talking with them. Unfortunately, I must make logical arguments. Throughout this conversation, you fail to address the argumentive points I make and the fact that I base my points on policy whereas yours are based on misunderstandings of policy and falacious arguments.----DarkTea 07:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
As numerous editors have implied, your arguments and edits (which aren't even predicated on consensus) are unconvincing and, IMO, replete with logical fallacy. I am not insistent that the article remain as is, I maintain that it should be enhanced and be as comprehensive as possible (as this is an encyclopedia); what you condone is, well, the opposite. You attempt veil your content editions as neutral, but they in fact fly in the face of the very 'Foundation issues' you invoke. Your verbiage notwithstanding, when I say 'I'm done with you', that acknowledges the fact that discussions with you are getting circular and are no longer productive, even counter-productive, and hereby extricate myself from further involvement. Basically: if you persist in continually pushing your viewpoint and stirring sh*t as you have been, don't be surprised if you are ignored by me or others and likened a troll. And that's it. Corticopia 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Unlike Corticopia's claim that I use logical fallacies, my claim that he uses logical fallacies shows concrete examples. His claim is an empty accussation. When you say, "I'm done with you ", you are noting the point where you have no desire to continue arguing, because you realize your arguments aren't based on policy or are fallacious.----DarkTea 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


First failed argument not based on policy pushed by Corticopia: other online encyclopedias. User:Corticopia argued that other online encyclopedias have long articles, so this article should be long. This is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia is run on Wikipedia policy. The policy never says to look at the way other encyclopedias run and make Wikipedia's articles a parallel to them. Wikipedia policy does say to stay on the article's WP:TOPIC. This article's topic is about the continent of Asia. It is not about the Asian people. The religion, philosophy, notable individuals, and economic statistics belong squarely with the people not the continent.----DarkTea 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Second failed argument based on misunderstanding of policy pushed by Corticopia: WP:CON. Corticopia thought that WP:CON overrode WP:NPOV. He tried to make the issue boil down to a simple vote, but Wikipedia: Consensus#Exceptions says that "Foundation Issues" are an exception. Foundation Issues include WP:NPOV, so WP:CON does not override WP:NPOV or any other foundation policies.----DarkTea 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Third failed argument based on fallacy pushed by Corticopia: the ad populum. Corticopia looked at the Europe and South America articles at argued that this article should include philosophy, religion, culture, etc. like those, using the fallacy two wrongs make a right. For the purposes of this article, it doesn't really matter if those articles broke the WP:TOPIC policy by meandering off topic. Their error does not need to become this article's error.----DarkTea 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Fouth failed argument based on misunderstanding of policy pushed by Corticopia: WP:NPOV. Corticopia likes to deride others by claiming they are "POV pushing". The WP:NPOV actually encourages the push for multiple notable POVs. The "N" in "NPOV" stands for neutral POV. It does stand for "no" POV.----DarkTea 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Fifth failed argument based on misrepresentation of my argument pushed by Corticopia: WP:V. Corticopia claimed that my foreign language maps cannot be WP:V because they are in a foreign language. I have 21 sources. The English-language maps can be WP:V and certainly sociologist Paul Thomas Welty's map can be WP:V----DarkTea 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
“ Welty, Paul Thomas. The Asians Their Evolving Heritage Sixth Edition. New York:Harper & Row Publishers, 1984. ISBN 0-06-047001-1 ”


Sixth failed argument based on fallacy pushed by Corticopia: tu quoque. Corticopia claimed that I was being hypocritical in my application of policy by considering the maps to be on par with the online Encyclopedia source. He would have us believe that I cannot form arguments based on policy because he believes I also break policy. He rejected my arguments based on my purported hypocrisy which is an example of tu quoque.----DarkTea 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Now it is time for my arguments to be laid out.----DarkTea 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


WP:TOPIC says that articles should be constrained to their topic and not include information that is vaguely related to their topic. The culture, religion, notable individuals, economy section is off topic, because they all deal with the Asian people not the continent of Asia. Unlike a nation, Asia does not have an economy; it has many nations within it that have economies. The same argument goes for culture and religion. Surely, the notable individuals section is clearly within the subject matter of Asian people and not hte continent.----DarkTea 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


WP:WEIGHT says that articles should maintain WP:NPOV, but give greater weight to the common POVs. For example, it says that at one time the greater POV would have gone to the flat Earth theory, but now it goes to the round Earth theory. Similarly, the definition of Asia which includes the Arabian peninsula is no longer the majority opinion world-wide. It used to be the majority opinion in medieval times when Europe labeled everything east and south of it as Asia. The US government considers them to be separate regions for foreign policy mattersBureau of Near Eastern Affairs. For policy matters, the US sees an Islamic terrorist Middle East and a peaceful Asia. The other current source is sociologist US-citizen Paul Thomas Welty (1984) who claims that the Middle East is not part of Asia. The current Duke University sociologist US-citizen Sri Devi Menon source here on page 70 says that currently the US considers the Middle East to not be part of Asia. WP:WEIGHT demands that if your POV is a notable minority, then it can be attributed to a notable critic. The US and two sociologists are notable, so the three region POV meets the requirement of "significant minority". It may also meet the reguirement of being majority viewpont. To be a majority viewpoint the POV must be present in commonly-accepted reference materials. Now, I have looked and I have not found the 3-region POV in most encyclopedias-- except one.
“ "Asia." The Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia. Rand McNally, USA: 1983. pp.416 ”
This source says there are three POVs on Asia. It says that geographers consider Eurasia to be the true continent. It says by region Asia divides into 6 regions: Soviet Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia. It says that there are two "realms" that which is "Asian in culture" and that which is "not". It lists East, Southeast, and South Asia as the cultural Asia. Another acceptable reference material are scholarly books. I have found one.
“ Nelson, Jane, et al. The World's Great Religions:Volume 1: Religions of the East. Time Incorporated, New York: 1957. pp.62 ”
In this book the authors show a map which they label "Asia". This "Asia" only includes East, Southeast and South Asia. It appears that the 3 region POV clearly meets the requirements of a significant minority and I also feel that it meets the tougher requirements of a majority. Consequently, there should be a change in this article. There should be no maps in the title unless they express both views and the maps in the body should express both views.----DarkTea 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


I have found the exact quote where sociologist Paul Thomas Welty says the definition of Asia.----DarkTea 22:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
“ "Welty, Paul Thomas. The Asians Their Evolving Heritage Sixth Edition. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1984. ISBN 0-06-047001-1 ”
“ The region called Asia in this book stretches from Pakistan on the west to Japan on the east and from the northern borders of China to the southernmost boundaries of Indonesia. Within these borders are included the countries and territories fo India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), the People's Republic of China (Mainland), The Republic of China (Taiwan), North Korea, South Korea, Japan, The Mongolian People's Republic, Burma, Thailand, Kampuchea (Cambodia), Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Nepal Bhutan, Brunei, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macao, and the Maldive Islands, (Welty, pp. 21 ”

I think the article should be left as is. I find the arguments to change it unconvincing. -Popkultur 11:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Corticopia 01:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Translation = your statement has been read. Corticopia 17:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the true translation requires knowledge of your argumentative style. You refuse to contue arguing with editors after you know you have run out of arguments that have not been shot down as fallacies. Corticopia has a couple of argumetative strategies that s/he employs regardless of the situation. I have personally noticed this simplistic argumentative style in my dealings with him/her, but I am now surprised to find that this is a regular pattern for him/her. Corticopia argues that appeal to tradition implies WP:CON on this edit with User:Meowy:---DarkTea 03:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
“ the current content was long-ago arrived at and harks of the common border between Europe and Asia. The other states of the Caucasus are generally reckoned to straddle both Asia and Europe, while Armenia, in the Transcaucasus, is generally reckoned to be in the latter. ”
How similar it is to this edit with User:Dark Tea:
“ no consensus has supported your reframing of content, or this removal of maps/images. ”
It is also similar to this edit with User:Dark Tea:
“ Until you convince a consensus of the validity of your assertions, these arguably disruptive edits will not hold ”
The other clutch argument is that when Corticopia finds out that s/he cannot win an argument based on policy, Corticopia claims the other arguer is a troll and refuses to talk with him/her. Look at this argument with User:Meowy on this edit:
“ And I'm unsure what you're adept at, except at gibbering and perhaps resembling a troll, which I refuse to feed hereafter. ”
How similar it is to a comment with User:Dark Tea on this edit:
“ Basically: if you persist in continually pushing your viewpoint and stirring sh*t as you have been, don't be surprised if you are ignored by me or others and likened a troll. ”
Corticopia's favorite misunderstanding of policy is WP:CON. It is as if Corticopia believes the whole set of policies boils down to a vote. You say, that you "see no one coming to your (Dark Tea's) defense". Read the Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions. It says that an exception is "Foundation Issues" which includes WP:NPOV. It turns out that your claim of concensus won't let you brake WP:NPOV.------DarkTea 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Corticopia's clutch argument is the fallacy argumentum ad baculum. When s/he knows no policy supports his/her actions, s/he returns to threats. These are in reality empty threats, since the arguers s/he argues with are neither trolls nor are their actions troll-like. For any policy Corticopia may claim User:Meowy and User:Dark Tea brake, User:Corticopia has broken one continuously, namely WP:NPOV.----DarkTea 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


The quote makes it clear the definition is just for convenience in referring to the area he is covering in the book. This is the same totum pro parte as the shorthand American use of Asian for East Asian or British use of Asian for South Asian. It does not show anyone is denying that other regions of Asia are Asian. --JWB 01:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes: as such, I have removed the quotation. As an alternate, the quotation can be included within the reference (e.g., akin to an endnote). Corticopia 02:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
A totum pro parte interpretation of the quote is OR against WP:NOR. This is not the same case as America/American. American is a reduced form of US-American; it doesn't change the definition of the Americas. When Welty defined Asia for his book, he did not intend for it to be a hypothetical instance that he felt was not universally true. To reinterprete his words like this, would be OR against WP:NOR. On the contrary, he intended for his defintion to be the true definition which he felt excluded the Middle East.----DarkTea 07:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Per JWB (emphasis mine): "The region called Asia in this book ..." -- it's more for convenience. If I produce even five reputable volumes which corroborate the concept and borders harked of in this article already, I'm sure you'll concoct some reason to deprecate them. Please. So, yes, DT, stop indulging in such original research and POV-pushing. Corticopia 13:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
What part of "in this book" don't you understand?
Are "universally true" and "true definition" your words or does Welty actually use them?
American is a reduced form of "US-American" (a phrase I've never heard or seen) no more than Asian is a reduced form of East Asian, South Asian, etc. --JWB 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand everything about what "in this book" means. It means that unlike other POVs, Welty's POV is that Asia includes the East, Southeast, and South Asia, so he must clarify this difference. You claim that he never uses the word "universally", but he also doesn't use the word "totum pro parte". Without either word, the sentence must read what it appears to read. Namely, that his definition of Asia is a POV that not everyone holds, but a definition that he will publish in his book. Your reinterpretation of this statement is OR----DarkTea 03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are you trying to change the definition of Asia, if I might ask? Padishah5000 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to "change the definition of Asia". I am trying to include the currently-accepted POV of Asia with the WP:WEIGHT it deserves based on its POV being published in commonly accepted reference materials. Due to it being published in commonly-accepted reference materials, its POV is considered a majority POV by the WP:WEIGHT policy. This means that it deserves equal weight with the outdated historical view on Asia.----DarkTea 03:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Why should a single author care the weight of an entire article, especially one that defines an entire continent? I really believe that you are confusing the racial defintion of "Asian" in America, with the geographical definition of Asia, the place. Padishah5000 17:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
One author does not carry the weight of this article and I am not confusing the Asian race with Asia. There are many sources I have cited that do not include the Arabian peninsula or other Middle Eastern countries as part of Asia. Some conceptions of Asia do not consider Russia to be part of Asia rather considering it to be part of Europe. These are also cited. In response to the allegation of confusing the racial definition of the Asian with the place, I have not recently tried to use the US Census as a citation. The US Census could have said that the Asian is a person from Asia and Asia is defined as the Far East, Southeast Asia, and the Indian Subcontinent, but they didn't. They did not use the term Asia, so I have dropped them as a citation for the alternative point of views on Asia.----DarkTea 10:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The U.S Census DOES use the defintion of Asian without the Near East included, but that is a racial definition, and not a geographic one. The bottom line is that Asia is a defined physical continent, independent of any human inclusion into its boundries. Padishah5000 19:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

when and why did they use the word asia???pls tell me the answer..

[edit] Possible reorg

I'd like to rework the current structure a bit, with the basic goal of moving towards a feature-worthy article. It's notable that only continent articles with featured status are Antarctica and Australia, both of which are very unusual continents. Also potentially of interest is the featured article for India, although it is about the country rather than the subcontinent. Anyway, based on these examples and my general impression of the current article, I'd like to change to something like the following structure:

--Name and definitions (consolidate these two sections, perhaps move details to sub-article or to Wiktionary)
--Territories and regions (better name for this?)
--Politics and diplomacy (it's very odd that this is missing)
--Geography (perhaps discuss "regions" in more detail here)
--History (not sure why this is currently only "early" history)
--People (perhaps the "Nobel prize winners" and "demonym" subsections could go here?)
--Economy (convert "trade blocs" to paragraph form, rm subheadings)
--Society and culture (include languages, religion here)
--References
--See also
--Further reading (or "external links" if we must...)

I'm not profoundly attached to any of this, I'm just looking for feedback before going forward... There's a lot of great stuff in this article, but at the moment the minutiae are tending to overwhelm the core topics. A general enforcement of summary style is in order. -- Visviva 10:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like those subarticles are much more encyclopedic than this one. I think merging summaries of the subarticles into this article, and moving some of the more trivial content of the current article into subarticles, would greatly improve balance. --JWB 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
After looking at the original article and looking at what you suggested, I believe that this will greatly improve the organization of the article. Right now the Asia page isn't very well organized. I approve. --nyeguy 03:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Groovy! I've been snowed under with other stuff, and may remain so for a few days, but will try to return to this soonest. Of course, if anyone else felt like doing the honors, that would be just ducky... -- Visviva 14:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They will kill their own kind just because their leaders said they have too many people in the country. Its wrong to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.237.2 (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong and Macao

Didn't Hong Kong revert to Chinese rule in 1997, and Macao in 1999? I don't see why they should still be classified separately. Their figures aren't even given together with China.

You should know that this has been discussed ad infinitum. :D --Howard the Duck 02:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Territories table

It lists two Taiwans and no China, something has to be corrected there. I guess rename first Taiwan to Peoples Republic of China should be enough? Or there was a reason for this? Normis99 11:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Taiwan is not a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.237.89 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Area of Georgia is 69,700! not 20,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.218.237 (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] REGIONS OF ASIA

I have never seen IRAN be part of south asia. It is commonly known that Iran is part of the middle east. Also i have never heard of the term western asia. The area named western asia is called the middle east.If any body has other arguments please say so. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmabbas786 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See United Nations geoscheme. 122.2.84.176 16:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Why North Africa is a part of Asia? Temur 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Egypt east of the canal is considered by many as part of Asia. 122.2.84.176 16:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The "World map showing the location of Asia" is mixing Mid-East and West Asia. Even the map in United Nations geoscheme is weird. Siberia and the Eastern area of Russia are categorised as East Europe, even though lots Mongoloid people live there. --222.145.8.14 04:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the UN geoscheme is weird. but the biggest problem is how did editors calculate the population of the asian sections of transcontinental countries? there are no references and no sources, did they count people village by village - which I doubt - or did they just made those numbers up? sources need to be provided or they should be deleted.--LI Begin (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religions of Asia

Yeah this entire section is completely mixed up. There's Chinese stuff in the Indian section, Indian stuff in the Chinese section, etc. Is there a reason...? Or, if there are no objections, should I just go ahead and fix it up? --Vamooom 03:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content blanking heads-up

I've reverted the blanking of the Islam section multiple times, just wanted to make sure everyone was aware it should be there and notices its absence, unless a discussion on this talkpage indicates otherwise. ~Eliz81(C) 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The map seems to have given West Papua and Papua their independence from Indonesia - is this a political statement or an oversight? - 202.4.78.29 03:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Islands east of the Wallace Line isn't part of Asia anymore. --Howard the Duck 03:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe Indonesian Papua is usally classified as inside political Asia but outside geographical Asia. Grinkov (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GDP

Please stop putting PPP GDP as the main one. This always give the wrong notion that China and India have higher GDP's than that of Japan, which is misleading and inaccurate. Note that all other sources give priority to nominal GDP rather than PPP, so why do we always do the opposite here?. Davi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.74.247 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. PPP is just purchasing power. The nominal GDP and GDP per capita of China and India are not that high yet. --222.145.8.14 04:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Does the word "substinant" exist in the English language? Apparently not. What was intended with such an adjective? Probably there is some spelling mistake. Please rectify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto Chilosi (talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UN Geoscheme

Can someone explain why is the UN geoscheme preferred over the other not any less credible definitions of regions? also where are the sources for the partial population of transcontinental countries ? where did they get those numbers ?--DavAlex (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DEMONYM

Spell it WITH me now, brothers and sisters: DEMONYM, not deNmonym as the article title says.

[edit] Russia

I think the population of Russia in Territories and regions is wrong. If total Russian population is about 142 million how can the asiatic part has about 139 million? Maybe that's the european Russia's population, but the never the asian Russia's.--Enkiduk (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The 139 estimate is several years old (it's meant to be the entire population) The newest count is 142 million and the Asian portion is only 42.2 million. European russia is 100 million people. But I don't know how to edit that thing. Mayday2010 (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I corrected it and put the figures of entire population and area as the sources could not be obtained to verify the partial data.I saw in Europe page thats what they did to countries that are sometimes considered transcontinental.--UltioUltionis (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Many inconsistencies

Under the population listings, Russia is listed as having 139 million people (and it says that's the Asian portion.) This is wrong, the Asian part of Russia Siberia has only 40 million people. Also, why is Egypt listed under North Africa on an Asian page at all? It says figures are for the Asian portion only (east of the Suez canal) but it still says population 80 million. 80 mil is the population for ALL of Egypt. The Asian portion is probably about 1 million (not many people live in the sinai desert.) These figures are overlapping and wrong. If you added up the total populations of the continents (as per the wikipedia page for each continent) you would get More than the world's population. Plus, we need to update the populations. Some of them are like the 2002 population count, whereas when you click the nation's page itself it has the 2007 population count. These counts are way off and are of different years. Mayday2010 (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

yes I agree.. so are the populations of other transcontinental countries and chart does not even mention that russia is partially european . I just wrote a new topic on that and I hope we will take care of it.--UltioUltionis (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Egypt

We need to find the population for the asian portion of Egypt, it is NOT 80 million. I cannot find it anywhere. If nobody can find the count (either 1 or 2 million lets say) we should scrap the entire Egypt part of the nation listings. The person who editted this gave Asia 80 million more people. Mayday2010 (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] link on a political map is not working

Hi, there is a link on a political map of Asia (Asie.svg) that should be fixed. Hover your mouse over Jordan and you'll see a text 'Jor., page does not exist' because it should be linked on Jordan article, and not Jor. I would fix the problem myself, but the article is locked for anonymous user like me. 213.191.143.122 (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)anonymous_user

[edit] possible error in article

Under the list of Southern Asian countries and their capitals it says Sri Lanka and its capital is Colombo. But in the article of Sri Lanka, it says Colombo is largest city and the capital is Sri Jayawardenapura-Kotte. 213.191.143.122 (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)