Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk | contribs) |
Jackiepurr (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 193: | Line 193: | ||
:Are you sure the word used wasn't ''Asiatic'' instead or ''Asianic''? Now we normally say Asian instead of Asiatic. By saying "Asiatic Continent", I take it they're excluding islands. — [[User:Blue-Haired Lawyer|Blue-Haired Lawyer]] <sup>[[User talk:Blue-Haired Lawyer|t]]</sup> 15:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC) |
:Are you sure the word used wasn't ''Asiatic'' instead or ''Asianic''? Now we normally say Asian instead of Asiatic. By saying "Asiatic Continent", I take it they're excluding islands. — [[User:Blue-Haired Lawyer|Blue-Haired Lawyer]] <sup>[[User talk:Blue-Haired Lawyer|t]]</sup> 15:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
== False information about China's wealth and the British Empire == |
|||
At no point of time in human history was China ever the wealthiest civilization. I think the sentence should be changed from "China was the largest and most advanced economy on earth for much of recorded history, until the British Empire (excluding India) overtook it in the mid 19th century." to "India was the most largest economy on earth for much of recorded history, until it was annexed by the British Empire in the 18th century". Economic historian, Angus Maddison proves empirically in his book, "The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective", that India was the largest economy from the 1st through to the 18th century and throughout most of recorded history. There is absolutely no proof to suggest that China was the largest economy (or even one of the largest economies) in the world. India's wealth finds mention in ancient Roman, Greek, Egyptian and Chinese literature. However there is no mention of China's wealth in any of the ancient texts, including China's! Please change this sentence. It brings down the credibility of Wikipedia. Thanks. |
|||
[[User:Jackiepurr|Jackiepurr]] ([[User talk:Jackiepurr|talk]]) 06:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:56, 5 September 2011
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:VA
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 20, 2005. |
Asia C‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Has someone checked the population densities?
The population density for Russia is incorrect. It should be 8.3 given the numbers included in the table. This would also bring it into agreement with the global geography entry which lists a population density for Russia of 8.3. I haven't had a chance to check the other numbers, someone probably ought to.
Iran: Southern or Western Asia?
This multi-color map,
classifies Iran (according to the UN?) in Southern Asia but the table following it on the article lists Iran in Western Asia. I suppose there should have been a "Southwestern" Asia as well...
Anyhow, it'd be nice if the map and the table were made consistent. hey !!! i nkow you want me!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.57.229 (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Georgia
I think it is time to remove Georgia (country) from this honorable list of Asian countries as majority of its population does not consider itself Asian and the International Community recognizes it as European.[1]
- ^ Majority of reputable sources place Georgia in Europe such as the European Union [1], the Council of Europe [2], British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [3], World Health Organization [4], World Tourism Organization [5], UNESCO [6], UNICEF [7], UNHCR [8],European Civil Aviation Conference [9], Euronews [10], BBC [11], NATO [12], Russian Foreign Ministry [13], the World Bank [14], Assembly of European Regions [15], International Air Transport Association [16],Oxford Reference Online, OSCE [17], ICRC [18], Salvation Army [19], International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [20],Council on Foreign Relations [21], United States European Command [22], Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary [23] and www.worldatlas.com.
Georgia as a transcontinental country
The same problem occurs here as in Europe concerning the status of Georgia as a transcontinental country. It is pointless giving lists of sources to prove Georgia is in Europe; or equally well in Asia. The situation has been solved at Europe and the same solution should be adopted here for consistency. The editor who made the changes seems to edit many articles concerned with Georgia, including Europe. If necessary more information on transcontinental countries and their status can be included elsewhere in this article (outside footnotes), but statements like "most sources place Georgia in Europe" cannot in fact be sourced The CIA fact book differs from the BBC, etc. But this topic has already been discussed many times, certainly on the Talk:Europe and its archives. Mathsci (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The same user has restored their changes, without any comment here. I have reverted their changes. They are not following WP:BRD by failing to note these points here, which have been discussed at length many, many times on Talk:Europe and its archives. Mathsci (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- My descriptions in the edit summary are clear enough. I am not going to come out here and argue obvious things just to waste everyone's time. My note was harmless and it was simply stating a reality. I know that CIA factbook and other sources differ, but that is the reason why Georgia is in this chart in the first place, is not it? I did not remove it, I merely added that the majority of sources I have place it in Europe.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is ambiguous, so I have adopted the compromise from Europe, namely that is often considered a Transcontinental country, that most sources describe it as being in Europe, but that a few named sources regard it, for particular reasons, as being in Western Asia. I hope that using that formulation is now satsfactory. There is an ambiguity and that has been quite well worked out in the European footnote (I truncated the end, but that could be reinserted). Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I am definitely in favor of standardizing the footnotes across pages because previously this Asia page has stood by itself, as if none of the changes made outside had to be adopted for the sake of consistency. Now I think it is more fair and will not confuse people when they go from page to page. For that reason, I will actually try to include this footnote in other regional classifications which are also known to cause confusion.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good and thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I reverted. This is not a source war. There is not going to be a stacking of sources against each other. Do any of those sources that consider it is in Europe say that it is not in Asia? If not the comparison is completely pointless. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good and thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I am definitely in favor of standardizing the footnotes across pages because previously this Asia page has stood by itself, as if none of the changes made outside had to be adopted for the sake of consistency. Now I think it is more fair and will not confuse people when they go from page to page. For that reason, I will actually try to include this footnote in other regional classifications which are also known to cause confusion.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is ambiguous, so I have adopted the compromise from Europe, namely that is often considered a Transcontinental country, that most sources describe it as being in Europe, but that a few named sources regard it, for particular reasons, as being in Western Asia. I hope that using that formulation is now satsfactory. There is an ambiguity and that has been quite well worked out in the European footnote (I truncated the end, but that could be reinserted). Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- My descriptions in the edit summary are clear enough. I am not going to come out here and argue obvious things just to waste everyone's time. My note was harmless and it was simply stating a reality. I know that CIA factbook and other sources differ, but that is the reason why Georgia is in this chart in the first place, is not it? I did not remove it, I merely added that the majority of sources I have place it in Europe.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- You are making a ridiculous demand chimpinkdavis. Do any of the sources that place countries in N. America say that they are not in south America? What does this have to do with anything? I disagree that we are engaged in a "source war" because we did not remove Georgia from the Asia/Western Asia list based on one set of sources, we merely acknowledged what is more common based on the sources we have. The fact that the country remained on the Asia list is enough of a prove that the differing sources have been considered as much as the European placement ones. If we had it all removed, then that would be a problem. --ComtesseDeMingrélie 14:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, your edit was unhelpful. This problem has occurred multiple times in the article Europe, where a very careful solution has been worked out in a footnote. That footnote has been copied here verbatim. After the mention of transcontinental country, it added the same two sets of carefully prepared sources which have been in place for a number of years. To use the words "source war" is thus completely inaccurate. There have been nationalistic editors of Europe who have caused disruption over the status of transcontinental country, but that is fortunately not what is happening here. The ambiguity has been spelt out without making any non--neutral claims.
I do have two questions about Turkey and Georgia. There are no population figures for the Asian part of Turkey, or any part of Turkey at all; and the population figures for Georgia are for the whole of Georgia, not for the Asian part of Georgia (in Europe the figures are only for the part of Georgia deemed to lie in Europe). Mathsci (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not have Europe on watchlist, so I have no idea what's on that article. The footnote has absolutely no purpose but to try and push a view that Georgia is solely European and the sources given do not substantiate this. The whole reason Georgia is on both lists is that it is transcontinental, ie it is in both Asia and Europe. Showing a bunch of sources to the reader that say it is in Europe does absolutely nothing. Yes it is, we all agree on that. The point of the excessive footnote is what exactly? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Let me repeat myself again, nothing in what we did suggests that we are pushing that Georgia is "solely European." Mathsci already remarked that this is the reason why the very first sentence of the footnote mentions that Georgia is often considered a transcontinental country. The rest of the sources simply give readers an idea of how frequent is one definition among the respectable sources, and how frequent another. I see absolutely no harm in that. --ComtesseDeMingrélie 15:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- The basic question of why still isn't answered. What does it mean for these organisations to call Georgia European? We note it is transcontinental, I'm fine with that. Frequency of sources does not matter in this. Of course a European organisation such as the Council of Europe will include Georgia. Anyway, many of these, that divide into different regions, have to decide whether to place Georgia in Europe or Asia. We do not face that problem.
- The Europe note by the way, is not neutral and does push a position. "It is placed in Europe by numerous European and international organizations,[176] but it is sometimes considered Western Asian[177] because of its peripheral location in the south-easternmost part of the continent." Basically it's saying that it should be Europe, but because its on the edge of Europe it is sometimes Asian. A properly neutral note would be a some sources call it European, some sources call it Asian, with no qualifiers or explanations. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I have a lot of experience with Europe. This problem is recurrent, which is one reason why that footnote is in place. The wording states that often Georgia is regarded as a transcontinental country. It lists sources for both Europe (e.g, BBC) and Western Asia (e.g. CIA Fact Book), in a neutral way. That has stopped problems on Europe. On Europe as well, it was necessary to add a lengthy section on the borders of Europe in the definition section, using WP:RS. For the most part, that has prevented problems. Those problems arise when editors want to suppress the ambiguity. In addition the labelling of the political map of Europe acquired a colour code to indicate transcontinental countries and special cases such as Malta, Cyprus, Armenia and Greenland. The solution there seems stable and that should also be true here. I don't suggest altering the political map on Asia (for Euope, I did it manually and it took a long time, because of disruption by the sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user). Mathsci (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- The footnote is pointless and too long. If necessary, all that's needed is that some sources place it in Europe, and some place it in Asia. A complete list of everything we can find doesn't help. Additionally, including sources such as the Council of Europe is ridiculous, as they're not exactly picking between Europe and Asia. Additionally, I see ComtesseDeMingrelie has decided to edit war this on to Western Asia, but not Eastern Europe, for some strange unfathomable reason. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is only a footnote. In Europe, the transcontinental countries are discussed in detail in the main text at various points. That doesn't seem to be the case here, so perhaps the better way to go is to spell that out in the main article. (I am surprised that as an article Europe is twice the length of Asia.) I am absolutely for the maximum amount of ambiguity and neutrality in this case. That is best achieved by adding to the main text, not tweaking footnotes. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm absolutely fine with an explanation of transcontinental countries, be it footnote or text, as long as it is WP:NPOV. The current footnote with its attempt to overload with references to Europe and qualify ones that mention Asia is not, however, NPOV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to look at Europe as a guide. At present there is no explanation whatsoever of transcontinental country in the main text of Asia (ho, hum) nor where that ambiguity came from (the cartographer von Strahlenberg, amongst others). That is a problem with how this article has been written. I think you should add something to the main text, if you have time. Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why the Asia article needs a section on transcontinental countries eludes me, but a small explanation under a list of countries is fine, perhaps with mains to relevant articles. In fact, I'll try and do this later, I assume it would mention Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey, and perhaps even Egypt. The ambiguity is because continents don't follow the political borders of countries, which frankly, is fine. This insistence that a country is one or the other is pointless. As for taking Europe as a guideline, I don't think so, it has a separate footnotes for each transcontinental country, but only Georgia has been singled out to be loaded with references asserting its European-ness. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- You are misreading me. I am only suggesting extra content in the main article to state definitively that certain countries are usually regarded as transcontinental. The article on Europe has no separate section on transcontinental countries. It does have a separate section on the definition, which is carefully sourced. There was one source in particular which was particularly useful, Lewis & Wigen (1997). The myth of continents: a critique of metageography. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20743-2. Once something is definitively in the main text with sources about transcontinental countries, that will solve any resting doubts you might have about WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV. I have spent several days over the years helping sort this out on Europe and am one of the main watchers there.[24] Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why the Asia article needs a section on transcontinental countries eludes me, but a small explanation under a list of countries is fine, perhaps with mains to relevant articles. In fact, I'll try and do this later, I assume it would mention Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey, and perhaps even Egypt. The ambiguity is because continents don't follow the political borders of countries, which frankly, is fine. This insistence that a country is one or the other is pointless. As for taking Europe as a guideline, I don't think so, it has a separate footnotes for each transcontinental country, but only Georgia has been singled out to be loaded with references asserting its European-ness. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to look at Europe as a guide. At present there is no explanation whatsoever of transcontinental country in the main text of Asia (ho, hum) nor where that ambiguity came from (the cartographer von Strahlenberg, amongst others). That is a problem with how this article has been written. I think you should add something to the main text, if you have time. Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm absolutely fine with an explanation of transcontinental countries, be it footnote or text, as long as it is WP:NPOV. The current footnote with its attempt to overload with references to Europe and qualify ones that mention Asia is not, however, NPOV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is only a footnote. In Europe, the transcontinental countries are discussed in detail in the main text at various points. That doesn't seem to be the case here, so perhaps the better way to go is to spell that out in the main article. (I am surprised that as an article Europe is twice the length of Asia.) I am absolutely for the maximum amount of ambiguity and neutrality in this case. That is best achieved by adding to the main text, not tweaking footnotes. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have reverted the article to the last stable version to allow unbiased discussion to continue. I agree with Chipmunkdavis that the version in place contained an unnecessarily long list of sources, and read more like a talk page comment by someone trying to push the view that Georgia is in Europe than an article footnote. Since numerous sources list it as being partly in Asia (including extra detail on the CIA page stating that "a sliver of land north of the Caucasus extending into Europe"), there is no reason to treat it any different from the other transcontinental countries in Asia. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is the established footnote from Europe. In principle I don't have any particular preference between the long footnote and the present one. However, if there is edit warring by other editors who edit articles connected with Georgia, don't say that I did not warn you and that I didn't find an appropriate compromise solution. In Africa, as here. there is no explanation of transcontinental countries. Egypt is the example between Africa and Asia. It is described as such in Africa, but not in this article. Which article is correct: Africa or Asia? Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- And what I predicted has just happened. Mathsci (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Something being used in Europe is not a reason for it to be used here. Nothing in the main test will fix my NPOV concerns with that footnote, but as I see a footnote is wanted, I'll fix it as I alter the text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- And what I predicted has just happened. Mathsci (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, it looks a lot better now. The only issue I personally have truck with now is that Egypt is not listed amongst the main body of countries. The Sinai peninsula is indisputably part of Asia, hence giving Egypt the same logical status as all the other transcontinental countries. The footnote at present justifies Egypt's omission due to its not being in the "UN geosphere". But as far as I can see from the image on the page, Russia is not in the "UN geosphere" for Asia either. So either both should be included or neither. Unless there's some other reason that I'm missing... — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Dammit that's annoying. You're right. It could be just converted to a list of countries and territories, and thus include Russia, Egypt, Christmas Island, and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Alternatively, the current section Russia is in could be moved into the bottom and be noted as "Other areas" or something similar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There are six transcontinental countries: Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Egypt. There are two countries, Armenia and Cyprus, which are not transcontinental (they lie in Asia) but, for historical and cultural reasons, are often considered to be part of Europe. I wonder if you could correct this? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well...can't correct anything now. You're right about Armenia though, that was a mistake on my part. The Cyprus footnote link is broken, have to fix that too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
While we're discussing countries, is there any objections to removing that large table of past names? I don't see any value in them on this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with the current wording. Making it appear as if placing Georgia in Asia is as common as placing it in Europe is deceptive and it shows inherent bias of user Chipmunkdavis who from the beginning displayed a particular zeal for pushing his narrow point of view. There was nothing wrong with the previous note as long as it was sourced.To make this even worse, his version is the one on which the page got locked which I find puzzling at best.Moreover, I would not agree with uniting all countries under a single note because Kazakhstan is neither member of the CoE nor listed as European by the EU or any other sources provided.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 14:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's not deceptive, it's a neutral not picking one over the other, not giving an opinion. My narrow point of view? As for Kazakhstan, it's not in the same footnote, so no problem. As for the page full protection, that wasn't me. I'm as surprised as anyone. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- @ComtesseDeMingrelie: See WP:Protection policy#Content disputes. This is termed as the wrong version. It's intended to be humorous, but I think you guys can get the picture from the first paragraph. If there is an agreement among editors, I will revert to the pre-edit war version by Yobot and you guys can discuss it from there.
- As I stated in the edit summary, the protection is a week despite the current expiry. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 16:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think this period could be used constructively for improving the article, or at least suggesting nd discussing improvementsa here. Chipmunkdavis has already improved the way of adding notes for the table so they can have their own footnotes (in line with Europe). I think changing the labels on the clickable main map and suggesting a caption to go with it could also be helpful, Also expanding the definition to talk about boundaries could also be helpful. I am more familiar with Europe and only watch Asia because occasionally there have been simultaneous problems on both. Periodically on Europe improvements happen precisely because of this kind of disruption. It is an odd phenomenon, but that is how it is: the article ends up being written more carefully with perhaps a better choice of sources, My feeling is that, although I'm not interested in editing, this period could be used to make real improvements to this part of the article. Chipmunkdavis has made a start and a lot more could be done. Wikipedia cannot resolve real life disputes or tensions concerning Georgia (or any other country) just by changing a footnote. Mathsci (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan Mathsci, make good out of the bad. Can you expand on the changes to the labels and the clickable map, not sure what exactly you want to change. Most of the edits you've made about the borders of Europe would no doubt probably apply here too (as Europe only borders Asia by land), and I've created a sourced summary of the history of Asia now present in the text, is there anything I may have missed? Would you agree on removing the table of former names? In addition, I think the subsections on economy can be worked into the main section (as they are short and have no sources), and the list of trade blocs can be removed and perhaps the most important couple mentioned in prose. For History, it should be expanded to provide a better summary, and maybe I could start a short biodiversity section. Most of these should be quick easy changes. Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think this period could be used constructively for improving the article, or at least suggesting nd discussing improvementsa here. Chipmunkdavis has already improved the way of adding notes for the table so they can have their own footnotes (in line with Europe). I think changing the labels on the clickable main map and suggesting a caption to go with it could also be helpful, Also expanding the definition to talk about boundaries could also be helpful. I am more familiar with Europe and only watch Asia because occasionally there have been simultaneous problems on both. Periodically on Europe improvements happen precisely because of this kind of disruption. It is an odd phenomenon, but that is how it is: the article ends up being written more carefully with perhaps a better choice of sources, My feeling is that, although I'm not interested in editing, this period could be used to make real improvements to this part of the article. Chipmunkdavis has made a start and a lot more could be done. Wikipedia cannot resolve real life disputes or tensions concerning Georgia (or any other country) just by changing a footnote. Mathsci (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- As I stated in the edit summary, the protection is a week despite the current expiry. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 16:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Note for Elockid, as you have asked in the AN/I for the users to agree to let you take admin action, noting here that I don't mind what version it is locked at, as long as every user understands that it is still under discussion and not a fixed beginning. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
South Sudan
The map should be updated to reflect the independence of South Sudan, which is visible on this orthographic projection. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Political geography
A situation has sort of developed on its own due to the desire to have multiple articles on the different aspects of Asia. I am sure the original editors of these articles fully intended to have distinct subject material. Otherwise, why repeat the same article several times under different names? But, time and people being what they are, I find there is extensive repetition. Now, in many cases, the topics are repeated but the material is not. I don't mind that. If one article gives one etymology and another another, let's keep them both. It should be interesting to the reader. Real encyclopedias do not demand uniformity of their editors. What I am thinking about is material that is duplicated by cut and paste, such as the 50-country list with all the notes. We don't need to see that in three different articles. One is enough. Since it is a geographical list and we have an article on the geography of Asia, it should go there (where it also is already), unless it turns up also in the country list, in which case it goes there. So at my leisure, unless there is an issue here, I am going to remove it from here and put a "main" reference to the geography, and the same with other material that is blatently copied from one article to another. If there is an issue, be sure and let us know.Dave (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikitable sortable
Just before I deleted the geopolitical table from here someone made it sortable. This is a misapplication of sortability. The order is in fact a critical part of the table. It is divided into sections by title. As soon as you do one sort on any column the original order is irrecoverably gone and the table becomes nonsensical. To apply sortability, you would have to redesign the table. But, I like it the way it is. The table is now in Geography of Asia.Dave (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The duplicate table and maps question
On the basis of the article Europe, I am surprised to see the removal of both the clickable map and the table of countries. These are very informative and I think there is a strong case for having them both in Asia and Geography of Asia, in this article perhaps not quite as they were displayed. The clickable map appears early on in Europe, where definitions and boundaries are discussed. So I would encourage the return of the table and the clickable map. I also would expect longer (summary) sections on both the geography and history of Asia, but that is another topic. Mathsci (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. I was beginning to think these articles are totally dead in the water. I read your other comments about transcontinental and I pretty much agree with those. What transcontinental? Nobody much uses that concept.
- Now, I continue to disagree with you about the table and the three maps. This is a large chunk of material; moreover, it is intended to be duplicated. I couldn't really accept it as it was. First, it was unfinished, with a lot of the formatting in but commented out because the editors could not get it working. In fact the template section (where the map is) drew an official tag of disapproval. The clickable map was unreadable and incorrectly formatted. I spent some time straightening that out. My only point here is that we really have to use the ones I got in Geography of Asia to fulfill the original intent and correct all the errors, many of which you yourself had pointed out. So, we don't want to use it the way it was before I started work on it. To modify that into something else by additional work, that is a different issue. If you have a different goal there perhaps you should consider a section in Asia based on it and done by you. In that way there would be no copy.
- To copy what I will have (I'm not done), gee, I don't know. It is an awful big chunk of text. I thought the idea was to have different articles on different subjects. Right now the structure is so parallel that you could easily merge the two. In fact I was wondering why the geography was broken out into another article. Does anyone want to propose a merger? The problem I have with a merger is size - if we start expanding the sections you propose (as will probably happen) Asia will get get to be over 100 Kb, which I consider the absolute limit and only for gigantic topics. They usually put a tag on those suggesting they be broken up. I'm surprised at your surprise. Big articles almost always get broken up by offloading topics onto other articles. I suspect we got long way to go just to mention the topics covered by other encyclopedias. Now you want to put duplicated sections into a set of articles. I think a referece to another article is fine.
- You might argue that the section in question should be in Asia not Geography of Asia. I considered that, but it is geography, you know. It would lengthen Asia by a lot, taking away space for other topics. The Asia article already has multiple offloads, so links to major material are not new there.
- I can define a couple of questions out of this.
- Should such a large chunk of text be simply be cut and pasted?
- If not, which article should host it?
- If we are speaking of modifying the old section into yet another section, I defer on that one. It could go in another direction, I do not deny. I however am not going to do it.
- The forum is open. Please discuss and vote.
The vote
- Leave it the way it now is, with the section in Geography of Asia and a link to it in Asia.Dave (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Restore at least the table (per Europe, Africa and South America). The new geography section is embarassingly short. Again, on the basis of the other continents, I would expect a short summary of one or more paragraphs that is more informative than what is there at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't we do something different there per the discussion above? You seemed to like a sortable table. We could take out the sections of the table I moved to geography, take out the date column, put a note in that the figures come from sources given in geography of asia, and make the table sortable. That way it will sort by area or population or alphabetically by country and yet offer something different from the one in geography.Dave (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Etymology section
Not bad, but you seem a bit uncertain as to what attribution to make. I presume that is because you are not a classicist. I can solidify that for you when I get chance - not too long as I am working on Asia. That will mean only a light edit. Meanwhile I am referencing this section from elsewhere so if it can stay here I would appreciate that..Dave (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Removed sentence
"However the Nile was usually considered the border until the 15th century, when the boundary was changed to the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Isthmus of Suez."
This section is pretty good. However, this statement is not quite accurate. The Nile was not the border. Opinions remained split. Now, anciently the Red Sea was the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. So, the Red Sea was the border over to India at first and then beyond. The Isthmus of Suez was described by Herodotus so it can't be any 15th century sort of thing. He described it as the Asian Shore and said Libya began there. I recognize fill-ins have to be in here but this one is not accurate.Dave (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Birthplace of the religions
"Asia has been the historical birthplace of all major world religions.[citation needed]"
I don't really know what to do with this. It is too broad as it stands. What's a religion? What is major? Do you mean historical religions or historical birthplace? By the time you finish defining those things the section is no longer an introduction. That "all" is not very objective. There's another one, too - origin. What is an origin of a religion? Some of them have founding figures - Christ, Buddha or Mohammed. Others, such as Hinduism, do not. Are we considering vanished religions? What about the ancient Roman religion? When did it begin? What is its origin?
A similar statement might be made of civilization. Where and when did it begin? Are you sure? What is it anyway?
My tendency is to avoid such generalization as over-generalization. By the time you have made your case you have written a book. And yet, if you say anything less it is wrong. Some things can't be reduced to a formula. I had a discussion with a lady once about the origin of wisdom. She was bound and determined to give a lecture to her church group on the topic and asked my advice about where to find books on it. Then we started getting into the definition of wisdom. I brought up the topic of Plato to no avail. In Plato, you know, some things can't be defined. But, she was giving a lecture, you know, just as we are writing an encyclopedia. I call to mind a certain movie character proclaiming that man must know his limitations. I don't think that got through.
So, I would not put any such facile statements in. In fact the origin of some religions is part of the doctrine. Did not God scatter all peoples from the Tower of Babel? Did not God eject Adam and Eve to the east of Eden? Obviously, all peoples, religions and civilizations must have come from Mesopotamia, which is in Asia. However if you are absolutely determined to presume to tell people where and when religion started you have to use sources. Here is another problem. Exactly what sources would you use? Do they belong to any of these religions? If so, how can we accept them as objective? By now you must be beginning to see what I mean. Encyclopedia editors must know their limitations.Dave (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Misunderstanding
"Some definitions exclude Turkey, the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia while only considering the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent to compose Asia,[11][12] especially in the United States after World War II.[13]"
This isn't true. One of these references is pay-per-view offered by the publisher so we can forget it. A second is not offering any preview but from what I can see they are only talking about western Asia. The one ref I can see is misinterpreted by the editor. There are a thousand agencies out there (large number) that deal with some locations in Asia. When they say Asia, they mean only that part where the jurisdiction of their agency extends. They do not mean that Asia is to be redefined to mean only their small chunk of it. I repeat, this is NOT a geographical redefinition but only a selection of some part in which the agency is involved. So, we can't present that as a serious definition of Asia; it is only a figure of speech. A bank that has an office only in Hong Kong might refer to its Asia office as Asia but that is not a geographical redefinition of Asia. Now the US reference cannot possibly mean that people in the US do not recognize the Middle East as Asian, which is what our statement asserts. I've never seen or heard of that in my entire life. The source appears to mean that Asians in the US only come from certain areas. None of this is developed in the article. We aren't interested here in the ethnic content of immigrants to the US from Asia or how they may be viewed. This is a geographical definition of Asia. So I'm going to shorten this to say what the one source I can see and don't have to pay for means, that agencies each have a functional definition of Asia that fits their activities. If you think that is wrong, may we have some development and some quotes on your apparent interpretation, that individual organizations redefine the general geographical definition of Asia?Dave (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, payperview sources are perfectly fine. One must WP:AGF that whoever provided the information is faithfully sourcing it unless conflicting information comes up. In this case however, it seems that the sentence is trying to say that in common usage asian referred to those from east asia or south asia, so doesn't constitute a definition for the area. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I do not think pay-per-view is fine. This is supposed to be a non-commercial encyclopedia. That means we do not buy and sell here. Pay-per-view is clearly selling, just as in Amazon and all the rest. The article can be referenced without selling it. That would have been fine. But, as you point out, the context was inappropriate anyway. If it had been appropriate I would have cited it without the link to pay-per-view. Pay-per-view is clearly sales on WP,especially given a choice of citations. We do not sell on WP, although in fact much sales gets done inadvertently. The public can easily find the pay sites with an Internet search. It is WP policy not to advertise openly for any sales agent. WP does not yet do commercials overtly. That is not to say it is not inadvertently commercial or editors do not make blatent use of the loopholes.Dave (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's just a reference. References don't even have to be online. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Right, right. Most references are not online. The reference has to be appropriate to the topic referenced and has to be encyclopedic in quality. Of course WP advertises itself and collects donation money under the banner of being non-commercial. The battle therefore goes forward over what is commercialism and what not. Of course WP "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" might as well have put a big target on its forehead with a sign that says "shoot me with commercials." No one likes hard sales material, which is what we would get by the ton if the rule were not there. Free publicity! Will wonders never cease? Why, you could sell or plug anything on here. Unless we make a move to stop them that is exactly what they will do. People have to decide what they want. No one likes TV commercials. But, some people have to have commercials. The cat feels sorry for the poor mouse he is at this very moment forced to swallow. There goes the tail. Naturally the line is sometimes hard to draw. Now, if a company puts up a sign, "pay per view", tells you the price, advertises the product, and lets you buy it online, that is commercialism. I can't see there is any other way to see it. What kind of WP do YOU want? I used to put up the Amazon site when I first started. Those were all taken off. The site I removed is not one whit different from that; in fact, Amazon, like Google, now lets you preview some books and Google sites are frequent, and Google sells books. I don't use them but others do. I would say, if you really want a non-commercial WP you are going to have to fight for it along with the rest of us, as the commercialists are editors also and they gang up on anti-commercialists to get their product sold. Is that YOU? If not, fight, don't argue with me!Dave (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's just a reference. References don't even have to be online. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I do not think pay-per-view is fine. This is supposed to be a non-commercial encyclopedia. That means we do not buy and sell here. Pay-per-view is clearly selling, just as in Amazon and all the rest. The article can be referenced without selling it. That would have been fine. But, as you point out, the context was inappropriate anyway. If it had been appropriate I would have cited it without the link to pay-per-view. Pay-per-view is clearly sales on WP,especially given a choice of citations. We do not sell on WP, although in fact much sales gets done inadvertently. The public can easily find the pay sites with an Internet search. It is WP policy not to advertise openly for any sales agent. WP does not yet do commercials overtly. That is not to say it is not inadvertently commercial or editors do not make blatent use of the loopholes.Dave (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The word Asia...
"The term "Asia" is originally a concept exclusively of Western civilization.[1] The peoples of ancient Asia (Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Persians, Arabs etc.) never conceived the idea of Asia, simply because they did not see themselves collectively. In their perspective, they were vastly varied civilizations, contrary to ancient European belief.[ref name="reid"]"
This is too general, not true in detail. The Greeks may well have got the word from an Asian place name, which kind of shoots down the idea that it is exclusively western. The Assyrian theory is a valid candidate but apart from that there is a Lydian theory also. They might be related. It might be an Assyrian name. No connection is proved but it is possible. But, there is a worse philosophic problem. Asia usually means "east" in usage and the eastern peoples did too regard themselves as eastern. They could see which way the sun rises and sets just like anyone else. Fine, they were vastly varied. Fine, Europeans did and do lump them all together. What has that got to do with the etymology? This is a section on the origin of the word. Now, no page number is given for Reid and he is not quoted. But, just as above, the concept cited is not true or relevant. So Reid is not a ref to any etymology.Dave (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Liddell & Scott ref
I applaud the use of L & S, a standard - no, THE standard - Greek dictionary. However, it does not state the origin of the ancient Greek word. To say that Asia originates from it presupposes Asia was always a native Greek word. Probably not. I will have to change some words on this to get the right implications.Dave (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The doubtful doubt
"However, this etymology is considered doubtful, because it does not explain how the term "Asia" first came to be associated with Anatolia, which is west of the Semitic-speaking areas, unless they refer to the viewpoint of a Phoenician sailor sailing through the straits between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea."
You mean, you consider it doubtful? You're neglecting the Assyrian merchants and trading communities in Anatolia, which might even have preceded the Hittites. For that matter none of the explanations explain how Asia got to be associated with all Anatolia. There are just various theories needing further substantiation. I don't see any reason to select the Assyrian theory as less credible. Your theory, which is that Phoenician sailors used the term, is even worse. Phoenicians spoke Phoenician, not Assyrian.Dave (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The blob, the blob - argh, a great blob of Asians - run
"Ancient and medieval European maps depict the Asian continent as a "huge amorphous blob" extending eastward.[1] It was presumed in antiquity to end with India—the Greek king Alexander the Great believing he would reach the "end of the world" upon his arrival in the East.[1]"
The blob probably comes from modern representations of the earliest geographers, who put areas on their modern maps to represent statements such as "the east beyond there is unknown", or the north, or whatever. The geographers of the Roman Empire did not use blobs, they used coordinates, which were very much a matter of competitive zeal. Each one was trying to scoop his predecessors. Strabo, Ptolemy (centuries after Alexander), they had much information about Asia east of India, or shall we say the East Indies, going all the way to the Pacific. I used to read the generalizations myself concerning how the Romans and Chinese were ignorant of each other. The only ignoramuses were the authors of such statements. I first started learning anything different looking at Ptolemy. Much to my surprise there were nations Ptolemy should not have known a thing about. The geographers certainly knew of Ceylon, China, Japan and the East Indies. Their coordinates only roughly resembled the way it is, but then they had a similar distorted view of North Europe and Africa below the north. The map-makers, expeditioners, caravaneers and merchants by land or sea certainly knew of the East Indies. How much the ordinary citizens of Rome knew is a good question, but then they did not visit libraries or make maps. The ordinary people were not literate. I suppose they taught themselves to read signs and decrees or just left it up to someone who could read. I think we vastly overwork Reid here.Dave (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
What is the Asianic Continent?
I was watching an old episode of What's My Line with Miyoshi Umeki ([25]), who was born in Japan. One of the questions by Miss Francis at 3:40 is "Where you born on the Asianic Continent?" to which Miyoshi's answer is no. I guess its possible that she didn't understand the question but the host of the show would have corrected such an obvious mistake if Asianic would include Japan. I'm finding very little reference to the word "Asianic" online and am just wondering what it really means. Is it just the adjective form of Asia or does it have more meaning than that? After reading the article about continents I guess I can see how it wouldn't include Japan, but I feel that if you asked most people now if Japan is on the Asianic continent, they would say yes. -- Suso (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure the word used wasn't Asiatic instead or Asianic? Now we normally say Asian instead of Asiatic. By saying "Asiatic Continent", I take it they're excluding islands. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
False information about China's wealth and the British Empire
At no point of time in human history was China ever the wealthiest civilization. I think the sentence should be changed from "China was the largest and most advanced economy on earth for much of recorded history, until the British Empire (excluding India) overtook it in the mid 19th century." to "India was the most largest economy on earth for much of recorded history, until it was annexed by the British Empire in the 18th century". Economic historian, Angus Maddison proves empirically in his book, "The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective", that India was the largest economy from the 1st through to the 18th century and throughout most of recorded history. There is absolutely no proof to suggest that China was the largest economy (or even one of the largest economies) in the world. India's wealth finds mention in ancient Roman, Greek, Egyptian and Chinese literature. However there is no mention of China's wealth in any of the ancient texts, including China's! Please change this sentence. It brings down the credibility of Wikipedia. Thanks.
Jackiepurr (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)