Talk:Culture of Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Culture of Asia was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on December 25, 2005.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)
  • Hello to all, please contribute to complete different sections of the article.--Bhadani 6 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Announcement

For those that are interested, I created a Cultures of the World stub that breaksdown the world into what I hope are more natural groupings. I think this could be a good catalogue for the cultures of the world.--Culturesoftheworld 18:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I strongly believe that this article should be deleted. There is nothing unifying about the cultures of the Asian continent, which spans from Israel to Afghanistan to Taiwan. You could go on and try to stuff all the cultures in here, but that doesn't make it "culture of Asia". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs) .

MY COMMENTS: I welcome your comments. However, in such matters, even diversity plays a significant role. I believe that you are really mature to understand such serious things, and therefore you have come to this page to present your comments. Just by way of example, there are several things uncommon in several parts of the world - that does not mean that the planet earth should be broken and transformed into several planets. Each human being is different, that does not mean that there is no human society. I trust you understand the issues involved. Please come out of the myopic view and enjoy the glory of being a human being, and a citizen of the world. Have a nice week end, and a happy New Year. May the The Light of Asia bless you. --Bhadani 15:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What you're saying doesn't make sense. If you're basing the idea of a culture of Asia on some religious book, then you've made a big mistake. There are a lot of interesting cultures within the umbrella of this so-called culture of Asia, but there are a bunch in many other parts of the world as well. The very existence of this idea "culture of Asia" is so unsteady and weak that unless there could be significant references and sources, it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs) .

Further response: In the absence of sufficient number of edits by you, I am unable to understand your inclination, domain knowledge on a particular subject, and form any opinion about your understanding of issues involved. I respect your views, but I am inclined to believe that you may not be aware of the ramifications and all the dimensions of the issues involved here: the Culture of Asia. My opinion is based, particularly on your misunderstanding of the words said in jest like “may The Light of Asia bless you”. My dear friend, the culture of Asia has nothing to do with any particular religion – please try to understand the matter with a wider perspective. Do you believe that there should not be a book on the “History of the World” because it will have a series of uncommon elements, encompassing millennia, and covering different civilizations, cultures, and so on? Still, if you wish, you are most welcome to hold your view about deleting this page. As regards the references and the sources, a little effort would yield plenty. It shall be my endeavor to give references, and satisfy you. --Bhadani 16:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Your example "History of the World", although clever, is illogical. A comprehensive overview of all cultures is logical. An article on East Asian culture is logical. An article on European culture is logical. There is no natural unity in "Culture of Asia". That's the problem. Respond to my "Culture of the Southern Hemisphere" grouping then. Culture of Asia is just as ridiculous. You might say, oh well, there's this fairly weak geographical concept that some people in the world with a particular point of view put together, so let's write a CULTURE article about it? That makes no sense. Why not a "Culture of Countries touching the Pacific Ocean" We can create tons and tons of groupings, but why? It only makes sense when there's been flow between them or they've affected each other or they are near each other. What's the flight time from Jerusalem to Tokyo? 18 hours? More? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs) .

If we were starting over, educating people about cultures of the world, we might choose to not refer to "Asia" or "Europe" at all. But we're not starting with a blank slate. People who speak English come to the English Wikipedia looking for information in the terms they've grown up with. So English speakers think of the continents as being North Am, South Am, Australia, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Antarctica. And when they see a Rivers of North America article, they expect to also see a Rivers of Europe article. Likewise, they'll see a Culture of Australia, and expect a Culture of Asia. We ought to have something there, not just a blank space, or else someone will go ahead and create the article - that's how Wikipedia works. Why not use the space to summarize the cultures that exist in the region? What do we lose by doing so?
This essentially is my opinion on the subject. I think 61.59.83.208's opposition of this article has only bolstered my opinion that it should be the COW. If Asian culture were simple and uniform, we wouldn't really need too long of an article, or at least it would already be done. This is a difficult article because it's not uniform. Furthermore, the idea of "blank slate" is kind of ridiculous and, as the user above has stated, we've got what we've got, so quit the complaining and get used to it. If I was a 14 year-old boy raised somewhere in the Yukon Territory, I'd probably be less likely to search for "Culture of Myanmar" than I would "Culture of Asia." JHMM13 (T | C) 04:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We're not here to simply reinforce popular misconceptions. That's why people come here and read about it. We're not here to give them what the expect. We're here to be informative. Thus, as I proposed, we can provide summaries of various regions that actually do have some kind of conventionally recognized grouping to them (i.e. Central Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, etc). without trying to create some kind of Culture of Asia article. We can provide some info and redirect them to where they should be going. BTW, as you see from past conversations, at least Russia and Japan, both countries with huge huge English reading populations, do not agree with what you call "conventional". The so-called popular misconception isn't even that popular if you're talking about the real English reading population. Further, I can think of several American schools that don't agree with you. It might be true of 14 year-old boy in the Yukon territory (are you actually familiar with the Yukon territory or are you pulling that out of thin air?) thinks of Asia as Eurasia minus Europe, but there are many better educated English speakers that would disagree.61.59.83.208 09:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rename?

Shouldn't this be called Cultures of Asia instead? Asia doesn't have a unifying culture. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not good enough and here's why. First, in contrast, look at the Culture of Europe article, which is legitimate despite its diversity, due to the deliberate attempt at creating a unified Europe (EU for example, NATO, etc). There are no such institutions or concepts that are Asia-wide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs) .
Second, and more important, if it is supposed to be just a summary article, I wonder why it should exist at all. Why should we group so many disparate parts together? What about a "Culture of the Southern Hemisphere" then? We could do an interesting summary of that too. What is the basis for a grouping like this? You don't have a cultures of Europe article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs) .
Okay, so I guess you're suggesting that we shouldn't have this article. Do you think that Wikipedia shouldn't recognize Asia as a useful term at all? I don't think you'll win consensus on either of those points (thought you're welcome to try, of course). By the way, you can sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. And if you get an account, we can have more coherent conversations on the topic. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd say Cultures of Asia should simply be a redirect page to this one. The name is better, even if it is slightly less accurate. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Let's go for accuracy; any misunderstandings will be cleared up by a redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs) .

I do believe it should be renamed to Cultures of Asia because this page is meant to summarize in a very basic format all the range of Asian Cultures and to basically redirect to more detailed articles therefore it would make sense refering to asia as a variety of cultures then a one unified culture. What im trying to say is this page is this article is more of disambiguation page for all the culture!s! of asia.Anubis 20:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal - Please comment

Given the vagueness of what should be included in Asia and the lack of unity of the article, I propose that Culture of Asia be turned into a regional redirect page, meaning we could have summaries of East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Central Asia, maybe a short section on each, and then redirect the overall page. There should not be an attempt to unify this data however, as you're trying to create something that's not there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs) .

I also want to point out that the current direction of this article is unsustainable. I edited out garbage like "brilliant light" of the religions in Asia and "glorious civilizations". If this is merely a catalogue of cultures on the so-called "Asia continent", then what is that kind of stuff doing in here? It seems someone is trying to promote Asia as some great unify really cool super duper place. Please also define Asia as well in your comments on this proposal.61.59.83.208 09:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A request

I would request the anonymous participant/s to at least sign their comments even anonymously, as this shall be helpful and wastage of time shall be avoided – one should remember that we are participating into a project to create and build the best encyclopedia in the world, and not stealthily coming here, saying something and vanishing. By the way, instead of participating in the conversation, I wasted much time figuring out what my anonymous friend had said so far, and where he had placed his comments. I fully endorse the views of Quadell and all others for signing their comments. All users, registered and unregistered are expected to sign the comments, unless they are very new users. Right now, I have not much to say, except that culture is not a commodity or a geographical entity like rivers, etc., and require a different treatment in encyclopedic as well as other writings. It is a good idea to read and comprehend the concept of Culture- by reading our article on Culture, as also some good books on the subject. --Bhadani 07:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, time wasted to identify and tag the unsigned comments by the anonymous user, and placing suitable remarks: about 45 minutes. I plead again, I request: – dear friend please always sign, believe me this is easy and hardly takes few seconds, unless you do not care for and do not believe in constructive collaboration. Please do not say that I am diverting from the subject matter, as unless we keep the sequence of the conversation, and fail to identify “who said what”, the conversation shall surely degenerate and loose the continuity and flow. --Bhadani 08:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I believe if my identity is relevant, and I'm wary of being associated with anything. I want my ideas to stand rationally for themselves. However, for the purposes of the discussion on this page, I'll sign. But I don't think it's so necessary. Wikipedia is open to everyone, not people that contribute a lot and "level up" for having done a ton of little custodial edits here and there. I question the logical abilities of a lot of admins around here or people that use their reputations as weight to say that there contributions are better.61.59.83.208 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for signing, and kindly note that we all, including me and you, are here with a specific purpose to contribute to the project, and I do believe that all edits, few ones or a ton, are significant in building the project: there is nothing like using “weight” and “reputation”. All administrators are basically editors (like you and me), and like all human beings, they are also susceptible to commit mistakes. It is really nice on your part that you are really endeavoring (by presenting your points) in building the project. And, in case, my words and requests have hurt you in anyway, I am open to tender my apology – it is a collaborative effort, and not a clash of egos and personalities. --Bhadani 09:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology and Religion

Should we merge the two? Or at least make them related, or subcategories, or something? There is a lot of overlap. -Moonstone 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, merger shall be ok. --Bhadani 15:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All are welcome

I saw all the edits since the initiation of the article, and found the interest of certain editors highly amusing, especially those who came to talk about the page anonymously or who became registered users to contribute here. I believe in the collaboration in the true sense, and I am sure that we have come here to add value to wikipedia. This is an important topic of wikipedia, and requires contribution from all possible sources. I wish each one around here a happy new year. --Bhadani 15:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I did a bit today - shall continue to contribute.

[edit] Religions originated

I think article should contain reference to all the religions which have originated in Asia. I think the article should continue to have these references: "Zoroastrianism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism originated in the Middle East." Actually, Middle East is a part of Asia. It may be reworded like "in the regions of Asia called Middle East" or in a slightly better way. --Bhadani 14:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Omitting the Middle East?

Would putting Middle Eastern culture in Culture of the Middle East be a good idea? Some consider the Middle East part of southwest Asia, but cultually the two regions are very different. Comments? 15:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, you are perfectly right. We should contribute to create a new article as suggested by you - I would love to participate. I also suggest that some reference to Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam in this article should find a mention - after all these religions are present in Asia. Should I add something like that: " Judaism, Christianity and Islam have greatly influenced the culture of Asia." Please suggest something. --Bhadani 16:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As per the above discussion and the disambiguation at the top of the article, Middle East material has been removed. Please add to the appropriate page.

[edit] It's a little irritating

It's a little irritating to have my material deleted when, clearly, the map on the top of the page includes the Middle East. It has the whole Arabian pennisula and Turkey/Iran/Iraq are clearly marked in green. --Calan 10:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music section

Music section perhpas require a bit of re-arrangemnt, as the present positioning is affecting the look of the article. May be as and when more contents come - they may look fine. --Bhadani 14:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

In my opinion order of sections require to be changed for logical flow. I will suggest an order - other interested editors are also requested suggest. --Bhadani 17:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)