Talk:Asia/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[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...

Well I am attending high school world geography and Cyprus is part of Asia in our textbooks. Egypt however is not, but I'll save that for its proper category. It would also make since that it is Asian since Turkey(Anatolia only), is part of Asia and the Anatolia peninsula goes further west than Cyprus. By the way, I may just be a high school student but I'm a smart, straight A student and I think that my argument is legitimate.

[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)

In the textbook that I study about world geography, it says nothing about Sinai being part of Asia. I can believe that though and if it is, it should not be removed because even though its the minority of the country in Egypt, Russia and Turkey are not completely Asian either. However, since only the Sinai peninsula is part of Asia geographically, it should not have a "North Africa " section and should instead be on the list with "West Asia".

[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.[1][2] -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 [3], 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.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] 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)

[edit] Sneaky Vandalism

The natural resources and manufacturing sections have some vandalism that slipped through the cracks. Other (presumably valid) edits have been made since then. Cos111 01:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of map/satellite imagery

The maps and satellite imagery were deleted by DarkTea under the description of "removed pictures that only took one POV where multiple POVs exist". This seems to stem from the content dispute over what constitutes "Asia" - but it is inappropriate to just delete the maps, IMHO. As such, I've reverted the edit pending input from the regular contributors. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 05:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a similar dispute over whether Central America is part of North America, or whether North and South America are even separate continents. Nevertheless there are still maps containing the disputed landmasses, according to the most widespread understanding of the terms. Removing a map of Asia makes no sense to me, and I intuit a strong POV imperative here... Popkultur 05:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this does stem from the debate over the definition of Asia. I was thinking of either removing the map or adding the maps of the other POV in accordance with WP:NPOV. I have multiple RS citations for the other POV, so I could add the other POV map per WP:NPOV to solve the problem. I chose to remove the maps because when I added the other POV maps before they were removed.----DarkTea 07:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
DT, what you just described is not good practice. Please keep in mind the following from WP:POINT:
  • If someone deletes information about a person you consider to be important from an article, calling them unimportant...
    • do argue on the article's talk page for the person's inclusion, pointing out that other information about people is included in the article.
    • don't delete all the information about every person from the article, calling it unimportant.

--JWB 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it stems from a POV dispute -- namely, DT's continued insistence on 'redefining' Asia (giving undue weight to Asia' nebulous nature) and adding alternate 'sourced' maps corroborating this viewpoint at the expense of others. A plethora of sources can be added to the maps which exhibit the prevalent reckoning, and even the UN scheme for countries/regions reflects this. (Note that 'Asian' may mean something different; cmpare with America/American.) You have done this numerous times before, DT, and have been reverted by a number of editors. Until you convince a consensus of the validity of your assertions, these arguably disruptive edits will not hold. Corticopia 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, you challenge me to give many maps when I only need one RS. This citation
“ Welty, Paul Thomas. The Asians Their Evolving Heritage Sixth Edition. New York:Harper & Row Publishers, 1984. ISBN 0-06-047001-1 ”

Is where sociologist Paul Thomas Welty claims that the continent of Asia only includes the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. He claims that Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. are part of a continent/region called the "Middle East". This book is printed at many California universities. I have provided other citations which I have shown you before.

  1. Asia continentOmits Pakistan and west, Russia, includes PNG
  2. Asia continentSame
  3. Asia continentExcludes Pakistan and west, includes Central Asia and Asian portion of Russia, includes Indonesia, includes Maldives
  4. Asia continentExcludes Arabian peninsula, includes Iran, unclear on Iraq, includes eastern Turkey, excludes Indonesia, includes Russia
  5. Asia continentExcludes Arabian peninsula, includes Iran, includes Central Asia but not Russia
  6. Asia continentIncludes Afghanistan but nothing west or north; primarily position map for Philippines
  7. Asia continentIncludes Afghanistan but nothing west or north; Russian site, and former Soviet republics are distinct category in Russia
  8. Asia continent Same as last; also Russian. Location map for Vietnam
  9. Asia continentIncludes Russia, Central Asia, Caucasus, but not Iran or west, or Indonesia. Location map for Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Not identified as map of all of Asia. Main page 2 levels up [23] has heading map of Asia including Arabian Peninsula and Turkey, unclear on Israel, including Russia and Central Asia.
  10. Asia continent Japanese-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent JWB:Location map for Nepal and Bangladesh for site specifically about Nepal and Bangladesh. Does not say "Asia" anywhere on map or in URL.
  11. Asia continentJapanese-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent. The word "Asia" is in English. JWB: Site also has [24]. Main page [25] lists Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan under Europe, indicating classification that keeps whole Former Soviet Union in one region.
  12. Asia continentJapanese-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent. JWB: No identification of sum of the 3 regions as "Asia".
  13. Asia continentKorean-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent and Russia JWB: Somewhat inconsistent with map on main page [26], though agree on exclusion of Iran and Arabia.
  14. Asia continentKorean-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent.
  15. Asia continentKorean-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent, Central Asia. JWB: No identification as "Asia".
  16. Asia continentChinese-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent, and Central Asia. JWB: Travel agency site.
  17. Asia continent Chinese-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent, Central Asia, Russia. JWB: Also omits Indonesia and Malaysia.

, yet you still wish to break policy User:Corticopia by ignoring the WP:NPOV. You seem to be tied up with the consensus policy again. You and I did not arrive at a consensus last time. WP:CCC we should invite other editors to see the facts.----DarkTea 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

DT, please add explanation to your image links. I gave a start by adding info on the first 10. Almost every one shows a different subset of countries. And they are all travel agency maps, so structured for travel arrangements convenience, not as an attempt at definition, except for 10. which is actually contrary to your assertion. --JWB 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not the one breaking policy: as I've noted, your argumentation may have validity regarding the notion of 'Asian', and this may also have limited utility in this article -- this is already given due weight (read the third intro paragraph, in 'Definition and boundaries'). However, you continue to usurp prevalent notions regarding Asia (i.e., since Classical Antiquity) with your own. I challenge many of the URL's provided above. In opposition, if you would like me to add sourced and fully reliable maps/references (e.g., from a number of governments and reference items) to corroborate the current article's content, please advise. And I do not need to negotiate a consensus with you alone: in additon to myself, two other editors have challenged your removal of this information, which is predicated on POV-pushing. Until the situation changes, I see no reason to relent. Corticopia 22:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I clearly have sources for the 3 region POV and your sources for the other POV do not erase my sources. The Japanese, Korean and Chinese sources are clearly outlining geographic borders, defining Asia. They are not showing pictures of the people or culture and defining the "Asian". Paul Thomas Welty explicitly states very early in his book the continent of Asia and has a picture to illustrate it. I do not dispute that one POV is that Asia is the landmass east and south of Europe. Your further citations for that POV do not cancel out the citations I have for the 3 region POV.----DarkTea 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
A lot of editors who are unfamiliar with the WP:NPOV policy accuse other editors of POV pushing. This accusation sounds like a violation of policy but it isn't. NPOV stands for neutral point of view rather than no point of view. Consequently, the accusation of POV pushing is an empty threat.----DarkTea 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Nor can your sources usurp others. As well, at least three editors (myself included) have come to the same conclusion regarding your POV actions. You are barking up the wrong tree, Tea. :) Corticopia 23:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that when other Asian editors see the evidence WP:CCC----DarkTea 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure -- no consensus has supported your reframing of content, or this removal of maps/images. Until then ... Corticopia 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Asia continent
  2. Asia continent
  3. Asia continent
  4. Asia continent
  5. Asia continent
  6. Asia continent
  7. Asia continent
  8. Asia continent
  9. Asia continent
  10. Asia continent
  11. Asia continent
  12. Asia continent
  13. Asia continent
  14. Asia continent
  15. Asia continent
  16. Asia continent
  17. Asia continent
  18. Asia continent
  19. Asia continent
  20. Asia continent

I have found another map. That brings the cites up to 20 + the one Welty source.---DarkTea 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:Dark_Tea is trying to create new definition of the boundaries of the continent of Asia. Padishah5000 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that User:Padishah5000 is in denial of the mountain of evidence for different POVs of Asia that I have found from independent sources. The accusation that I am creating a new definition is absurd, since these maps clearly illustrate their individual authors' opinions rather than my own. I did not make the numerous maps I have found for definitions of Asia. Most of them are Korean, Japanese and Chinese language sources whose Asia maps do not show the Arabian peninsula or other Middle Eastern cultures as part of Asia. Many clearly indicate that they represent a concept of Asia by their title, although it is in a foreign language. It seems to me that the definition of Asia conceptualized by East Asia does not include the Middle East because they have no cultural connections to East Asia.----DarkTea 10:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am still not convinced. Asia, as defined as a continent, is just that. A continent. Not a "cultural sphere" or whatever. Padishah5000 04:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The cultural defintion of a continent is a POV. The outdated defintion of Asia is a POV. Both of the POVs are notable whether or not you choose to be "convinced".----DarkTea 04:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that was a quick response!