File talk:East Asian Cultural Sphere.png

new version

See Commons:Village_pump#HELP.21.21 --Jarekt (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of extended East Asian Cultural Sphere

@Arumdaum and Morrisonjohn022: The change to remove the status quo light-blue shaded regions and dark-blue shaded Mongolia is disputed, so please discuss here. MarkH21 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: For what it's worth, there are sources that include:

  • In particular, in terms of its geographical reach, Confucianism reflects the historical and cultural experience of the “Chinese cultural sphere,” including the use of Chinese characters as well as the system of philosophy led by Confucius and Mencius [...] It has also reached non-Han regions such as Korea, Vietnam, Japan, and Mongolia. In these countries and regions, the significance of Confucianism is not limited to the traditionalism of feudal agricultural society; it also refers to a cultural system centered on the teachings of Confucius and Mencius.

    — in: Huang, Min-Hua Huang and Chang, Shu-Hsien (2017), "Similarities and Differences in East Asian Confucian Culture: A Comparative Analysis, The Journal of Multicultural Society, 7 (2): 1-40.

• Although Vietnam is usually considered part of the Sinosphere and Mongolia is sometimes considered part of a part of greater East Asia [...] Vietnam belonging as much to Southeast Asia and Mongolia belonging to Central Asia as either belongs to the Sinosphere

  — in: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard, Mads Walther-Hansen, and Martin Knakkergaard, Chapter: "The Sinosphere" from The Oxford Handbook of Sound and Imagination, Volume 1, Oxford University Press (2019)

• The vast Sinosphere includes Korea, Japan, and large swaths of Inner Asia (Mongolia, Xinjiang), as well as regions where Southeast Asia languages are spoken: China south of the Yangtze ("Cisyangtzeana") and Vietnam.

  — in: Vittrant, Alice and Watkins, Justin, The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area, de Gruyter (2019), page 6.

These are just examples. The light blue section isn't an assertion of unambiguous inclusion anyways. A further investigation into which areas are sometimes labeled by sources as belonging to the "East Asian Cultural Sphere", "Sinosphere", "Chinese cultural sphere", or other synonyms is needed. We should definitely remove those that are unsupported by any sources. MarkH21 (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC); citation formatting 06:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Against the inclusion of Mongolic and Tibetic groups, as well as Siberia, Sri Lanka, and Southeast Asia:

There are a variety of common cultural markers within East Asia. There have been zero arguments as to why Mongolia, Bhutan, and Sikkim are included, as well as the entire light blue area. Areas such as Tibet and Inner Mongolia are colored blue on this map for being a part of the current PRC. I have never seen a single source seen any of the light blue area, which is "variously included," as part of the Sinosphere. The current map is only a marker of who is considered "Asian" in terms of modern race discourse.

East Asian civilization is marked primarily by the use of Chinese characters, the influence of Chinese philosophy, the heavy influence of Chinese forms of governance, and the presence of Chinese-style Mahayana Buddhism, among other less important common features such as the usage of chopsticks and Chinese-style architecture. In no area outside of Korea, Japan, China, Vietnam, and Ryukyu are any of these present. Permanent settled habitation was also an important part of being part of Sinic civilization, which again the Mongols do not have.

Not to mention, the current map is a mess. Kalmykia was removed from dark blue due to one editor having never heard of Kalmykia and not knowing that Kalmyks are Mongols, but at the same time the person who included Kalmyks for being Mongols did not include traditionally Buryat (also Mongol) areas in Russia in dark blue. The entirety of Siberia was colored blue due to contact with Mongols. I cannot even guess as to why the Philippines and parts of New Guinea are colored in, when they lacked any significant historic contact with China.

Arguments can perhaps be made for Singapore and majority-Chinese areas of Malaysia, but I do not think it would be a good idea to color in areas simply for having the presence of an East Asian diaspora.

Sri Lanka appears to be colored light blue only due to Zheng He having participated in a civil war there once and having paid tribute to China. However, being part of the Chinese tributary system does not make a place a part of the Sinosphere, unless virtually all of Europe is also to be part of the Sinosphere.

If someone can indeed provide sources that Mongols did indeed have a significant degree of influence from China, then perhaps Mongolic areas could be shaded light blue. Arumdaum (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The quotes above, which are from reliable sources, all explicitly include Mongolia. The first one, in particular, discusses the influence of Confucianism on Mongolia. MarkH21 (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: and @Arumdaum: The Mongolic and Tibetic groups of South Asia, as well as Siberia, Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia (excluding Vietnam) are not part of the East Asian cultural sphere. Some of them have connections to the cultural sphere but are not traditionally a part of it. In fact, all of those groups and countries (excluding Mongolic groups and Siberia) are part of the Indian cultural sphere. The main relationship Southeast Asia has with the East Asian cultural sphere is through overseas Chinese communities in Southeast Asia. The main relationship Sri Lanka has with the East Asian cultural sphere is through the adoption of [traditional Chinese architectural practices and belief in the Mahayana boddhisattva, Guanyin. Also, Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka both now have large modern-day Chinese populations that have settled there in the past 20 years due to Chinese economic and political influence. In fact this is something that one of the editors pointed out and I think it's quite valid. So I suggest we add a sentence to the lede that explains the cultural connections that Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka have with Han Chinese culture but the map should exist in its current form (the core East Asian cultural sphere countries). Maybe we can create another map that illustrates Chinese influence in other parts of Asia but that map should not be located in the lede. Either way, the sentence explaining Chinese influence in other parts of Asia is what I think is the most important and best way to achieve consensus on this issue. What do you both think? (2001:8003:4E46:D000:3519:AA66:9E82:77F5 07:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC))

@MarkH21: and @Arumdaum: In that case, create another map about the Chinese influence in other parts of Asia, but leave the lead map to the original one. Horope (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

As I read the relevant policies, this is not a fight to be having over the image file: the appropriate method is to leave the original as drawn (with any actual updates it may need) and have a second graphic to show the other opinion, which indeed someone has created (here). There is room on Commons for many versions (including this one). More can be created for various ideas about what the concept encompasses, or if it is a valid concept. The honest place for loud discussions on the rightness or wrongness is on the Wikipedia pages which use it. Hogweard (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ibrahim Muizzuddin: Look at the discussion above. This version stays. So quit edit warring Ibrahim, or you'll be reported. Slovski Gaelsyar (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slovski Gaelsyar: Do I need to reiterate this the appropriate method is to leave the original as drawn (with any actual updates it may need) and have a second graphic to show the other opinion, which indeed someone has created (here, version with lighter blue shade as you insist) for you? And please stop act of sockpuppetry before you report me to Wikimedia administrator board -Ibrahim Muizzuddin (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)