Talk:Sinosphere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

[edit] NPOV

I've tagged this because the inclusion of Korea, Vietnam and Japan in any concept of Greater China is completely nonsensical. If the article means to say that those countries have been influenced by China, then fine, though no doubt others have as well. But that influence doesn't make them part of China any more than Taiwan is part of some "Japanese world" because anime is popular there, or Turkey is part of the "Italian world" for using the Latin script. No, cultural exchange is a function of neighbouring states, and the fact that neighbours exchange culture does turn them into the same country. Pruned of its Chinese nationalist garbage, this article may be worthwhile, so I'm not nominating it for deletion. Meanwhile, "disputed". --Zaxios 06:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In the past Korea and Vietnam were paying tributes to imperial China, like suzerainty. The relations between Japan and old China is more complicated. — Insta ntnood 09:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant. China itself was under Mongol rule, historically, but no one is claiming it as part of a "Mongol world" now. --Zaxios 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Former British and Portuguese colonies like HongKong and Macau should be included in the Angoloshpere and Portuguesphere instead, because the first official lanuage in these colonies had been English and portugeses for centuries. Probably they are still their first official language now. Migye 04:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This article might be redundant. See East Asia, it explains everything that is in this article but more clearly. The only thing worth salvaging might be the map. --Countakeshi 02:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, the guy just translated this from a French article. I don't know if the "Chinese world" is a more common concept in France than it is here (canada). I've never heard of it before... TastyCakes 05:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Having spent the majority of the past two decades in East Asia I'd say this article is far from putting forward a point of view. It's rarely disputed that Vietnam and Korea were under heavy Chinese influences, until the idea of sovereignty was introduced to this corner of the world, and they were established as sovereign states. "Sovereignty" and "sovereign state" are relatively rather new to East Asia, comparing with its long history. — Insta ntnood 07:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sovereign states are relatively new to the world, full stop. But so what? The article doesn't seem to be referring to any historical concept of a "Chinese world" -- it's talking about the present, and it even uses the modern borders of those newfangled sovereign states in its map. --Zaxios 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Culturally speaking those influences, e.g., Confucianism in Korea, still exist. — Insta ntnood 18:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Confucianism exists everywhere. In terms of other Cultures, Korean culture is no where Chinese related. Migye 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is untrue. Korean culture is full of stories from China, such as the Romance of the Three Kingdoms and the Journey to the West. To cite a more modern example, Louis Cha's stories are popular in Korea as well. --Kjoonlee 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

These stories are well known throughout Asia and the world. Does it mean the all Asia is Sinoshpere? As I argued before culture influence is everywhere and is not unilateral. There are things in China influenced by Korean, Japanese, Mogolian and Vietnam cultures. Do you think that makes China part of Koreansphere or Japanese sphere? Migye 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They were better known in Asia before they became known to the rest of the world. Those earlier places are likely to be in the 漢字文化圈. --Kjoonlee 17:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Asia is more Sinoshpere than the US does. That's nonsense. Migye 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I think what I said makes perfect sense. --Kjoonlee 17:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and China would now be part of the 韓流文化圈, if you get what I mean. --Kjoonlee 17:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to be more clear :

¨Chinese world¨, I translated it from ¨fr:Monde chinois¨ which is a common expression use in France about the area, its history, culture religions, etc, and nothing more.
that have no link with the notion of ¨great china¨, and, of course, ¨this influence doesn't not make them part of China¨.

that just an expression which describ an cultural area, your help is welcome to improve my former ¨redaction¨ and to make this article more neutral :] Yug (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand now, Yug, but the phrase is foreign to English and doesn't deserve an article in the English-language Wikipedia. In any event, the best this article can be is redundant to East Asia and the articles on the Chinese disambiguation page. I'll wait for arguments to the contrary and, if there are none, mark this for deletion. --Zaxios 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Language should not be a barrier to human knowledge. — Insta ntnood 18:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese World or Chinese community ?

This new version from the 8 january seem (for me) be more like the "Chinese community" (oversea chinese). Moreover, Japan, Korea and Vietnam don't are (for me) in the chinese world, but just have strongh links and influences. What do you think ? Someone have an official definition ? Yug

The closest equivalent terms are the Sinosphere/Chinese character cultural sphere/Chinese cultural sphere/East Asian cultural sphere. On comments below I mentioned I modified the article on 13 April 2006 to include what I have in mind for a draft article Sinosphere. Would it be a better idea to rename this article as Sinosphere? (Since we already have the Anglosphere defined on a very similar basis as a grouping/network of countries, but with English as working language and with historic British heritage. --JNZ 06:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to have the move reverted for the time being. It looks like a Wikipedia neologism. There doesn't seem to be any source using the word sinosphere for this meaning. — Insta ntnood 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A number of English-speaking people seem to use Sinosphere and what they mean is the "Chinese character cultural sphere" widely used in Chinese language circles. Bennett does point to a network commonwealth of Chinese around the world when he mentions Sinosphere in his book The Anglosphere Challenge. (Source: http://www.anglospherechallenge.com/ch4samp.html ) It is up to you to decide if calling this Sinosphere is appropriate.--JNZ 03:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any people other than Bennett using " Sinosphere "? Would it be a word he's picked just for the purpose to compare Anglosphere with other -spheres? — Insta ntnood 19:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just call it the "New Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" and be done with it?

because the Japaneses absurd the term during WWII and is avoided like Nazi. also it is no a co-op, the countries highlighted are known to have absorb/use chinese culture/teaching and based their administration on those of Chinese principles, at least for a period. today, korean and japanese text still use some chinese word. Akinkhoo 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A better name

This article deserves to stand by itself, but I think it is more appropriate to retitle it "Chinese cultural world" to better satisfy NPOV.

Did. Yug

[edit] New Additions 13 April 2006

I expanded my draft article on the Sinosphere into this stub since most of what I have essentially describes the same thing (Greater Chinese cultural sphere or Sinosphere). If anyone thinks it is inappropriate, feel free to delete it.

Also since we have the term Anglosphere defined in a similar fashion but describing nations that had English language and cultural influences, and since it has become common usage, would it be more feasible to rename this article as Sinosphere to unify usage of cultural groupings of nations?

--JNZ 06:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tibet

"grouping of countries and regions that are currently inhabited with a significant number of people of Chinese descents or historically under Chinese cultural influence." Despite the policy of huge replacements of Tibetan populations in Tibet by Chinese population, does Tibet qualify yet? Tibetan culture, language etc. have not yet been fully destroyed. deeptrivia (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

More than one culture can exist in an area, especially if each is more or less carried by (a) different ethnic group(s). In this case, if Tibetan culture has survived until now in Tibet, that doesn't mean there can't at the same time be the Chinese culture brought to the capital by “a significant number of” Hàn immigrants. Wikipeditor 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overseas Chinese

In the article there is a phrase:"and its overseas Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau..." Are Chinese people in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan considered as oversea Chinese? There is no "sea" between Macau and China as I know. -Oscar24 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.192.16 (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

from google earth, i can see a man-made canal between mainland and Macau. so i guess they fix that problem! =P Akinkhoo 17:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinosphere?

I don't think there is such kind of thing as Sinoshpere. Nobody thinks that Koreans, Japanese, Mongols and Vietnese speak Chienese language. It is more appropriate to include countris where Chinese is considered an official language as Sinoshpere. There is no way Korea, Japan, Mongol and Vietnan are Sinosphere. Someone is really kidding me. Migye 17:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? Sinosphere is defined as those regions that were, historically or otherwise, culturally influenced by Chinese civilisation. I didn't notice the article claiming that Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese speak Chinese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The sphere thing is laguage related. Anglosphere is a group of English speaking coutries. If you want to fabriacte a sinosphere accordingly, please choose Chinese speaking countries. Korean, Japanese, Mogolian and Vietnese culture, language are totally different from those of the Chiense. The wording of this article is totally ridiculous. Migye 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about Anglosphere. The article does not define Sinosphere as regions that speak Chinese. It's about regions that were culturally influenced by the Chinese civilisation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to privide sources. Otherwise it is original work. The influence is mutual. We all influence others and others also influence back. Migye 19:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just do a simple search on how the word is used. They all refer to cultural influence.[1][2][3]. Hey, and I absolutely agree that influence is mutual. Nothing in the article have stated otherwise. A subject about Chinese cultural influence does not automatically mean that the Chinese civilisation has not also been influenced by other cultures. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So what? Any source say that Korea, Japan, Mogolia, Vietnan are part of sinosphere? There ain't even significant Chiense population in these countries. Not to mention sphere. Migye 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't actually click on those links I just provided, didn't you? Here are a couple more[4][5]. And also, I don't know how many times I have to mention this, but Sinosphere is defined as those regions that are culturally influenced by the Chinese civilisation. Korea, Japan, and Vietnam were all culturally influenced by the Chinese civilisation, this is a commonly accepted fact. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Only one of your source includes these countries as sinosphere, but it was written by a Chinese nobody. It doesn't provide any credit here. These countries were only influenced by Chinese culture in the history. Nobody thinks their cultures now are Chinese centered. There are Chinese characters in Japanese language and there used to be Chinese characters in Korean and Vietnese language, but these Chinese characters convey different meaning. Koreans have already completely abandoned Chinese characters in their language long time ago. As for Mongols, they speak totally different language. It is ridiculous to include Mongolia in Sinoshpere. On the contrary, China should be part of Mogosphere instead. Migye 03:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody thinks Korea's culture is China-centered, but Korea is part of the Sinosphere, nonetheless. Korea has not completely abandoned Hanja. --Kjoonlee 17:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"but these Chinese characters convey different meaning."

i haven't hear of any; in some cases, they are used differently to fit into their existing vocabulary but they still descript similar things. as a chinese, i can read those text use by japanese with some sense. in fact, Singapore's 1st prime minister who was English educated once said in an interview; he learn Chinese just to read the Japaneses document during the occupation. Akinkhoo 17:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate Map

Sinoshpere should include those countries where there is significant Chiense population. Like Greater China, Signpore, Malaysia. Countries like Korean, Japan Mogolia and Vietnan where Chinese population is only a small fraction of the population are nowhere close to this sphere. The current map should be removed. These countries are not the center of this article anyway. Migye 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is no furher disagreement, I'll have the map removed. Migye 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Again, Sinosphere is defined by cultural influence. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. CJKV (the chopstick countries) are all part of the 漢字文化圈. Arguing that sinosphere should mean something else seems to be a mix of POV pushing and prescriptivism gone awry. --Kjoonlee 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost all Asians use chopsticks. It is really nothings. Germans, French use forks as Americans and British do. But that can't make them Angolosphere. Migye 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not change the subject. :( --Kjoonlee 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said on my Talk page, please provide sources if you want to argue that Sinosphere specifically is not defined by cultural influence at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out many times, even if it is culture based, it is still an inappropriate map because compared with Singpore, Malaysia, countries in the map are at the far-fetched edge of this thing. They are not the ones to highlight in the article. Migye 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources, please. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're ridiculous. What does it have to do with sources. Migye 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:No original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong, I'm realy tired of these nonsense of yours. How come removing a picuture is original work? Migye 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change the subject. It looks like you're making non sequitur mistakes as well. :( --Kjoonlee 17:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As per the article and the source, "Bennett envisages the Sinosphere as consisting of Greater China, and to some extent, its overseas Chinese population in countries like Singapore. One of the main unifying links is based the Chinese language". If someone wants to put a map, it should be a Greater China map instead. Nobody considers Korean, Japan, Mogolia and Vietnam as Greater China. Migye 18:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember these links? I posted them in the last section of this Talk page.[6][7][8][9][10] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of these websites are nothing not authoritative. Anyone can set up a website and put some nonsense there. The thing here is that the map is not what the article is saying. That makes it irrelevant and be removed. Migye 18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, read the second paragraph of the article. --Kjoonlee 18:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mongolia doesn't meet any standards to be part of Sinosphere. This article also doesn't include Mongolia as part of Sinosphere. The map is simply wrong. If there is no disagreement, I'll have the map removed. Migye 15:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the proper thing would be to come up with a new map that satisfies everyone. --Kjoonlee 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So you admit the map is wrong. What is the point keeping the wrong map? Migye 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I know nothing about the map. But you don't seem to have a consensus on its deletion. --Kjoonlee 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then your opinion doesn't have any merit here. It is pretty obvious, Mongolia is not even mentioned in this article. Migye 16:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I say it should mention Mongolia. Mongolian writing was influenced by Hanzi, AFAIK. --Kjoonlee 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

At least one of the sources I provided right here in this Talk page already included Mongolia as a part of Sinosphere. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Mongols have never borrowed any Chinese characters. Also HongQiGong, you think what a stupid student put on his personal website is a creditable source? All other sources used here exclude Mongolia from Sinoshpere. Migye 15:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing "writing system" with "characters", it seems. --Kjoonlee 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I want to provide sources that back the notion that Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Mongolia are not part of Sinosphere. The source is "James C. Bennett" who is the center of this article. He excludes all these coutries from Sinosphere. This article itself is in dispute, because there is no agreement on which countries are part of Sinoshpere. In such circumstance, adding a map favoring only one of the opinions is biased. If there is no further diagreements, I'll have the map removed. Migye 15:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Objection. You shouldn't just ignore other people; you should go ahead when you have consensus. You don't seem to have any. --Kjoonlee 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you diagree, you need to provide reasons. Otherwise, it will have no merits to other editors. Migye 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think plenty of reasons have been provided, actually. For the record, I disagree with you as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You two haven't provide any reasons for Mongolia, except a University student's personal website. Migye 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Mongol Empire was China, during/after the reign of Genghis Khan. Guess what script they used for diplomacy. --Kjoonlee 17:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mongols didn't abondon their language as Manchu did. There is no similarity between Mongolian and Chinese languages. Migye 18:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything about that. They were influenced by Chinese writing, hence they are included in the Sinosphere. --Kjoonlee 18:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, all you've done is disregard my source. Do you have a source that claim specifically that Mongolia is not a part of Sinosphere? Otherwise, you've got nothing to contradict our claim. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this dispute wouldn't happen if we can present some sources showing what the Sinosphere does include. I believe there are valid problems to the map. If the map is based on Chinese cultural influence, as in the western reckoning of Sinosphere, then it should include parts of Southeast Asia with a large Chinese diaspora. And if the map is based on the concept of the "Chinese character cultural sphere" used in Japan and China, then Japan should be dark green (as it uses characters officially), while Vietnam and Mongolia should be excluded (as they doesn't use characters). Currently, the map isn't accurate for either the western or eastern definitions.--Yuje 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've actually provided some sources already in this same section of the Talk page - [11][12][13][14][15]. However, I don't think Migye here will be satisfied until that map and the List of tributaries of Imperial China are delinked from all articles. He had been delinking them from other articles. Granted, I agree they don't need to be in a lot of the articles he delinked them from, but I think this is one article that should include them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong, I personally think you have a screw loose. And be aware who the heck you are. Please stop repeated citing sources that don't deal with Mongolia and stop talking nonsense. Migye 16:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. I personally think I don't care what you think of me. Please cite some sources that directly contradict my sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be over now, but in case anyone cares: The traditional Mongolian script was borrowed from the Uighurs (not Han Chinese), who had their script from the Sogdians, whose script was ulimately derived from Phoenician. The alphabet now used in Mongolia is the cyrillic one, again ultimately derived from Phoenician, not Chinese.

The Mongols did also use other scripts like Phagspa or a transliteration with Chinese Characters at some time during their empire, but these don't seem to have had any lasting influence. Anyway, if someone could explain what exactly the rationale is for considering Mongolia part of the Sinosphere (past colonial relationship ?), I' d be most grateful. Yaan 14:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irelevant Links

These links : List of tributaries of Imperial China, Suzerainty, Tributary state are about military matters. I'll suggest have them removed. Migye 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Suzerainty-tributary relationship has led to much cultural exchanges between China and its historic tributary states. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Culture exchange would occured better without these military matters. These are irrelevant or inappropriate links that should be removed. Migye 17:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The point remains that cultural exchange did happen with suzerainty-tributary relationships. Besides, those links only serve as suggested reading for readers interested in the subject. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, culture exchange happens all the time. You can't list all the things here. Migye 18:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course we can. If you can think of any other articles that are relevant to cultural exchanges or Chinese cultural influence, I encourage you to include them in the See also section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I find your arguement simply silly. But, as a compromise, I'll replace the above links with links to History of China or manybe history of other countries. Migye 18:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How is my argument "silly"? How many times must I point out that suzerainty-tributary relationships yielded a lot of cultural exchange? And again, I disagree with taking out the current links. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Because culture exchanges occurred throughout the history and the above linked articles talk nothing about culture exchange between China and other countries. They shouldn't be here first place. Migye 18:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They are the causes of a lot of cultural exchange, and like I said, the See also section only acts as suggested reading. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to provide links that deals with culture exchanges among these countries not otherwise. Migye 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See the links I already provided in the last section, and the section before that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't think you are the one who lays the rule here. Those links provide nothing about the cause of culture exchanges. They are irrelevant and should be removed or replaced. Migye 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, suzerainty-tributary relationships were the reason for a lot of cultural exchanges[16]. I don't really feel like repeating myself anymore, but I feel those links need to be in the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the countries mentioned in these links are not listed as part of Sinoshpere here and once again, these articles don't have any information about culture exchange what so ever. Migye 14:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, some of their sources do. And like I've said again and again, those are just to act as "suggested reading", and suzerainty-tributary relations have been the cause for a lot of cultural exchange. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all you need to point out which part of which above articles is talking about culture matters. If you think the sources used in these articles are useful, you need to add these sources to this article instead. Second of all, as I just said most of the countries discussed in these articles are not listed as part of Sinosphere in this article here. Putting these irrelevant links is misleading. If you continue to stop me from changing this article to a proper presentation manner, I'll consider it vandalism. Migye 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that they're irrelevant. I think those links are very relevant. And those links do not actually have to talk about cultural exchanges. Like I keep saying, they're only to act as "suggested reading". And also like I keep on repeating again and again, suzerainty-tributary relations were the cause for a lot of cultural exchanges. That alone makes them relevant links. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In the NPOV section of this talk page. Concensus was reached that these links are irrelevant. These are your POVs. Migye 03:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that they are irrelevant, so I guess we don't have concensus anymore. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one that diagrees here. It doesn't matter to me. If you think suzerainty-tributary relation is the cause of culture exchange, why are not all the countries that had -tributary relationship with China part of Sinoshpere? I'll wait for a while to see if other editors have any opinions. Otherwise, your opinion will be disregarded. Migye 15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not nice. You should focus on building consensus. :( --Kjoonlee 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is nice here. If HongQingGong's logic is right, then the all Asia should be Sinosphere. Anyway his arguement is nonsense to me and there are other editors consider these links irrelevant. Migye 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your argument doesn't make any sense at all and you seem to refuse to take simple logic into account. Anyway, not all of Asia is within Sinosphere. Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia (or the Malacca Straits area), etc, are not usually considered to be within Sinosphere. I've seen your contrib history, you seem to only want to remove List of tributaries of Imperial China and the picture in question from a whole bunch of articles. I'm kind of doubting if your concern is really about this article specifically, or if you just want to remove links to the article and the picture throughout WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat one more time, there are authoritative souces that exclude Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Mongolia are not part of Sinosphere. This include "James C. Bennett", the center of this article. If there is no further diagreements, I'll have these non-culture related links removed. Migye 15:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because he didn't mention them doesn't mean he excluded them. That's a logical fallacy. Don't remove links without consensus, if people disagree with you. --Kjoonlee 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And where exactly does James Bennet say that these countries are not in Sinosphere? Even then, there are other sources that contradict that. NPOV would mean we include different opinions, and not exclude those we personally do not like. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

These links are disrespects of other countries. As if these countries are part of this so called Sinoshpere because they were once the tributaries of the imperial China. Such kind of practice shouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia. Migye 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those links are disrespectful. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notified on the Incidents Noticeboard

This is just a note to let everyone know that Migye has posted a notice on the incidents noticeboard about this article. To any editors responding to the claim that was posted there, my response is this - sources have been provided to justify the current state of the article, while Migye has not provided countering evidence, and has only made assertions. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

JUBALCAIN 09:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC) put hand up for adjudication...(probally silly of me)

[edit] Neologism?

I have no problems whatsoever with the content of the article, and have no interests in starting a new debate on whether or not the concept is accurate or which countries should be included, etc. But, having read all the above comments, I remain unconvinced that "Sinosphere" is a commonly used term in scholarship (or in everyday discussion), that it is not a neologism, and that it is a better term than "Sinocentric world order", "Chinese cultural sphere" or the like. Can anyone provide some examples of scholarly works that use this term? (Not a single outlying example like Bennett, mentioned above, but a good number of sources) Thank you. LordAmeth 12:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick Google search actually found a recently published book that used the word in the title, but it's a book about China's role in Africa[17]. The title is "The New Sinosphere" - that suggests an academic place for an "old" Sinosphere to begin with. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just search at Google Scholar and you get loads of results on the Sinosphere. (You have to dig a little because there's a journal called Sinosphere, but there are still a lot of results after that.) --Kjoonlee 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for that. LordAmeth 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rediculously inaccurate character map

Neither Mongolia nor Inner Mongolia use an Indic-derived script. Mongolia uses Cyrillic, while the classical Mongolian alphabet still used in Inner Mongolia isn't derived from an Indic script. Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Phillipines all use Latin-based scripts for their languages, Brunei uses Arabic script. In Xinjiang, Uyghur is written either with Latin or Arabic script. In Korea and Japan, Chinese script is used in conjunction with native script, while in Vietnam characters are not used at all, but replaced with Latin alphabet. In other words, the map is wrong for more than half the countries depicted, and wrong for most of East Asia and Southeast Asia. --Yuje 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I believe the point may have been to indicate cultural influences, not just writing systems. Many parts of Mongolia and Western China are more influenced by Persia and Central Asian cultures than, say, Eastern China, Japan, or Korea. ... Vietnamese history and culture is very heavily influenced by Chinese culture, and only stopped using the Chinese writing system within the last few centuries; Korea, I've heard rumor, is phasing out Hanzi, but they're only doing so now. So the general cultural influence is very much there, if not fully obvious in the written language. (Besides, Vietnamese language is extremely heavily influenced by Chinese, even if it's no longer written in the same system.) LordAmeth 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If the Mongolian part would be blue and the caption explain that the whole map is related to traditional usage and blue means ultimately derived from something like phoenician or syriac or sogdian alphabets, it might actually be useful (the northern part, anyway). As it is now, it's complete nonsense.Yaan 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with alphabets and everything to do with a wider definition of cultural influence. See character: 3. A distinguishing feature; characteristic; A complex of mental and ethical traits marking a person or a group. LordAmeth 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If the map is supposed to be defining cultural spheres, then why are all the green countries clumped together? Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan are in the Islamosphere, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka are all Theravada Buddhist countries, India and Nepal are Hindu, while Bhutan, Tibet, and Mongolia are part of the Lamaism sect of Buddhism. Phillpines is Catholic and fall outside any of these cultural groupings. Oh, and the Japanese writing on the map explicitly mentions that they map is supposed to be based on historical writing script, so in the case of Mongolia and in the case of many of the Muslim countries (which historically used Arabic), it would be wrong.--Yuje 07:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. I should have read that first. Sorry. LordAmeth 10:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this map is less about the current situation but is averaged out over history. Latin script in Indonesia, Chinese script in Tibet etc. are relatively modern phenomena. deeptrivia (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop using the Vietnamese reading of the characters

Vietnamese does not have a term for this concept. The reading of the Chinese characters for this concept is gibberish in modern Vietnamese. DHN 07:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your discussion continued in 2008

I haven't seen any significant discussion for this article in months, so has interest disappeared? The notion of "Sinosphere" fits in as a good analog to "Anglosphere," so I can see how an anglophone would think of it as a good concept and article title. Well, its supposed Chinese name 漢字文化圏 translates to "Chinese character cultural zone," which is not the same as what the name Sinosphere would lead you to think, especially if you consider it an analog to Anglosphere. In fact, the literate world that uses the Latin alphabet would be the exact counterpart to 漢字文化圏. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.119.118 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)