Template:Vital article Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

The map needs to be replaced

Why does the map include Tibet? It may be East Asian geographically but the Tibetan people do not have the same culture as China (exclude Tibet), Korea, Vietnam, Japan, isn't the subject of this article the culture of the four regions mentioned above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:800:6294:4542:C9F3:2D61:24E0:77F0 (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your concerns. The so-called "East Asian cultural sphere" as shown by this map indiscriminately incorporates the cultures that historically belong to that cultural sphere and the territories of the modern nations that officially use languages of the Sinosphere.
This is particularly conspicuous in the case of China. While China's modern political control over Tibet and other areas, with Mandarin as the official language, and the settling of vast numbers of Han Chinese immigrants in these territories, does mean that these areas now belong unequivocally (through imperialism) to the East Asian cultural sphere, this is not the historical situation. A more nuanced map of China is perhaps needed, one which distinguishes between the historical Chinese cultural heartland and areas that historically only belong to the East Asian cultural sphere by virtue of being part of modern China.
Something similar applies to Japan, where most of Hokkaido was traditionally Ainu and did not historically belong to the East Asian cultural sphere. These areas only became part of the East Asian cultural sphere in the 19th century.
Vietnam is trickier. The south traditionally didn't belong to the East Asian cultural sphere but has been so thoroughly integrated into it over a long period of time that it would be silly to insist on using different colouring for the area of ancient Champa (for instance). Perhaps a couple of historical maps are needed -- but that would almost certainly entail original research. Bathrobe (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese culture belongs to East Asian cultural sphere ?

Vietnamese culture does not belong to East Asian cultural sphere or Sinosphere because culture of Vietnam is transitional culture between Indosphere and Sinosphere, only Vietnamese people who love Chinese culture think that Vietnam belongs to East Asian cultural sphere.

Culture of Vietnam has the attribute of mixing between the Indosphere, Sinosphere and Western culture (French culture).

Sinosphere only includes countries: Chinese mainland (except Tibet, Xinjiang, Guangxi and Inner Mongolia), Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Japan, North Korea and South Korea

Vietnamese culture originated from "Southeast Asian cultural sphere" (Phùng Nguyên, Đồng Đậu, Gò Mun, Đông Sơn, Sa Huỳnh) which has nothing to do with Sinosphere at all (The Phùng Nguyên, Đồng Đậu, Gò Mun, Đông Sơn, Sa Huỳnh cultures looks like to Indian culture or also likely the originating from India).

In addition, Vietnam has 100 million people but cannot find 10,000 people who know Han-Nom script (<0.1%) and Han-Nom script is no longer the official writting system of Vietnam, this is also evidence to conclude that Vietnam is not part of Sinosphere. However, there are still some Vietnamese people who have the idea of restoring the Han-Nom script.

62.14.234.232 (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand you are saying that Vietnamese culture originated from the Southeast Asian cultural sphere. On the other you are saying it belongs to the Indosphere. And, of course, there is modern French influence. Your point seems to be that Vietnam doesn't belong to China culturally. Well, of course it doesn't.
But whatever the historical background, Vietnam still bears the heavy imprint of the Sinosphere, unlike the historical contribution from the Indosphere (whatever that may have been), which is not readily apparent today. The commonalities with Southeast Asian culture are also more "low culture" than "high culture", which is where the influences from the Sinosphere are most apparent. While Vietnam no longer uses Chinese characters, its culture, language, and religion still retain the unmistakable traces of the Sinosphere.
This is not that different from Japan and Korea, which have independent cultural roots separate from China but have been heavily influenced by the Chinese literate culture and, because of that, also belong to the East Asian cultural sphere. Belonging to the East Asian cultural sphere does not condemn a country to being an appendage of China; it is merely a result of long-term, if relatively recent cultural influence. It does not preclude different ethnic/linguistic roots or other cultural influences.
The result of being part of the East Asian cultural sphere is apparent if you look at language. Whether Vietnam uses Chinese characters or not, the commonalities with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean are immediately apparent from the dictionary, where both ancient influence from Chinese and more recent influences from Japanese (via Chinese) are quite manifest.

Bathrobe (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change article name to Sinosphere?

"East-Asian cultural sphere" seems too vague and it's already referred to as the Sinosphere in multiple places. Orsos 0323 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Sinosphere" could be China's zone of geographic dominance in various ways (military, economic, diplomatic etc). "East-Asian cultural sphere" has a very specific meaning which is not likely to be misinterpreted. AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AnonMoos. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos Okay? Does the "Anglosphere" not imply some sort of geographic dominance as well? Your logic can also apply to the Anglosphere article yet it is still called... the anglosphere. Orsos 0323 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before the Suez Crisis of 1956, the term "Anglosphere" might have been very ambiguous also, but that's not really the case in the 21st century. Also, the prefix "Anglo-" refers to England, which might be a little different from the political UK, but there's no such distinction with "Sinosphere". AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos Anglosphere is 100% ambiguous in the 21st century?? Like you yourself said, it means English but also encompasses non-English peoples, like Quebecoise in Canada, the Celtic countries in the British isles. This could also be applied to countries like Belize, which is even more ambiguous. Orsos 0323 (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, applying this logic, should the Anglosphere article be called "Northern European Cultural Sphere." It's vague and comes across wrong to most people in the West who would read it. Orsos 0323 (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Anglo-" refers to the English language. Only Ireland speaks English in northern Europe outside the UK. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos Sino is also linguistic though? Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese all have Chinese influence on their languages. Orsos 0323 (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Sino-" might be linguistic, or might refer to China in other ways. AnonMoos (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos Yeah... same applies to Anglo in Anglosphere. So why does the same logic not apply to both articles? Orsos 0323 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orsos. The distinction between Sinosphere and Anglosphere or Indosphere seems to be purely arbitrary. They all refer to more than just linguistics or political influence yet the other articles exist without being referred to as South Asian cultural sphere or English cultural sphere. To be clear, the gist of my statement below is that the core content of this article is slightly different from East Asian cultural sphere, which does not encompass Vietnam fully, and rather describes areas around China that were heavily influenced by it culturally and politically. Sinosphere is the more accurate term since the common element is Chinese influence rather than geography and its avoidance is almost certainly out of political considerations rather than the content, which is less accurately described as "East Asian". Qiushufang (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So is it possible to change it? Orsos 0323 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be changed, as per AnonMoos' arguments.Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Revirvlkodlaku His arguments apply to Anglosphere too. Orsos 0323 (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore we should change the Anglosphere article to something ridiculous like "British Isles Cultural Sphere" Orsos 0323 (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems pretty clear that what this article is really talking about is all the areas with significant borrowing from Chinese civilization in terms of their cultural and political influence. That's why Vietnam is also included despite usually not being considered East Asian since it borrows more from China more other parts of Southeast Asian. Hence the above argument about Vietnam's placement in this article. The avoidance of Sinosphere in preference for East Asian cultural sphere is likely out of consideration for modern political biases, although the Sinosphere may also be that as well, rather than the contents of the article. The lead says as much. Qiushufang (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qiushufang "Modern political biases" is just sinophobia. Orsos 0323 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support move per WP:COMMONNAME; as Google Ngram shows[1] "Sinosphere" has far more usage than "East Asian cultural sphere". Sutyarashi (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, Google searching can't tell you when the word "Sinosphere" is being used in the meaning "East Asian cultural sphere", and when it's used in a different meaning, such as the PRC's current zone of economic and political influence. Also, this is not a formal article move proposal... AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos Okay? Google is inherently Sinophobic and demonizes China. Orsos 0323 (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's far easier to count occurrences of words with Google than to count the occurrences of specific meanings of words has nothing to do with China-specific topics. AnonMoos (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos Yet implying that Sinosphere is a bad term is deeply entwined in (often anti-Chinese) China-specific topics. It's rooted in the belief that Sinosphere countries such as Japan who have committed genocides against Chinese people don't like the term because of ethnic hatred. Orsos 0323 (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- saying that "Sinosphere" has MORE MEANINGS than "East Asian cultural sphere" does, and therefore is potentially ambiguous, has no relationship to being pro-China, anti-China, pro-Japan, anti-Japan, or any other kind of politics. AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos Yeah, it's somewhat ambiguous I agree. So is the Anglosphere though?? You don't understand that I would be fine with East-Asian cultural sphere if the same logic was applied to the Anglosphere article. But big surprise, it's not. Do you really not see how this could be perceived as an anti-Chinese measure so that East-Asian Sinophobes aren't lumped into an ethnicity they hate? Orsos 0323 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply a fact that "Anglosphere" is not perfectly parallel or symmetric to "Sinsophere" in several respects. AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but no. Sinosphere is the proper article title, see Sinosphere (disambiguation). Sutyarashi (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it's Sinophobic or if it means East Asian cultural sphere is irrelevant because this article does not cover the East Asian cultural sphere, it covers the Sinosphere. The common element is historical Chinese cultural and political influence, particularly in how the countries modeled themselves on the example of China, not a geographical category or East Asian culture. Again, that is why Vietnam is included, and why there are few examples of covering East Asian culture other than Chinese cultural influence. Qiushufang (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support move Changing my vote on this. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a formal article move proposal -- it lacks the paperwork for that. AnonMoos (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. @Orsos 0323 you should request move for the title change. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 May 2023

East Asian cultural sphere → Sinosphere – The distinction between Sinosphere and Anglosphere or Indosphere seems to be purely arbitrary. They all refer to more than just linguistics or political influence yet the other articles exist without being referred to as South Asian cultural sphere or English cultural sphere. To be clear, the gist of my statement below is that the core content of this article is slightly different from East Asian cultural sphere, which does not encompass Vietnam fully, and rather describes areas around China that were heavily influenced by it culturally and politically. Sinosphere is the more accurate term since the common element is Chinese influence rather than geography and its avoidance is almost certainly out of political considerations rather than the content, which is less accurately described as "East Asian". Orsos 0323 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, none of the links on the "Sinosphere" disambiguation page discusses the PRC's sphere of diplomatic/political/military influence, so that material on that would probably be added to this article if it's renamed... AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos Why are you so adamant on calling out the PRC's "political and military influence"? Anglosphere ALSO has no disclaimer like that. I kind of feel you're debating in bad faith by trying to remove all references to China due to your own personal beliefs on the Chinese government. Orsos 0323 (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- there are several reasons why "Anglosphere" is simply not perfectly parallel to "Sinosphere". You gave my previous attempts at explanation very short shrift, so I don't feel inclined to go into any greater detail now. These discussions might go more smoothly if you didn't have a chip on your shoulder. AnonMoos (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Orsos 0323, please do not make unfounded accusations against other users—that is uncivil and will not be tolerated. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Revirvlkodlaku It's not unfounded? It's like how there's always "Chinese state media" tags on all things Chinese. Lots of countries subsidize their news outlets, yet there is still a disclaimer for China specifically. Is it so wrong to question renaming an article just so you don't mention something China related? Is it wrong to question "DISCLAIMER THIS IS NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHINA SPECIFICALLY HAS INFLUENCE ON" on one article yet no disclaimer like "THIS IS NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE UNITED KINGDOM SPECIFICALLY HAS INFLUENCED ON" on a very similar article? Orsos 0323 (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Orsos 0323, please calm down, you're starting to sound unhinged. There's absolutely nothing wrong with questioning the renaming proposal, but that is not what I warned you about; I warned you about making unfounded accusations of bad faith.Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Revirvlkodlaku "Unhinged" I won't debate further on this if you're going to paint me in that light. Orsos 0323 (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Orsos 0323 this is Wikipedia policy to always assume good faith from other editors. You've already repeatedly accused AnonMoos of having some sort of anti-Chinese sentiments without any evidence, and this may even lead to being indeffed. Please counter AnonMoos's arguments in civil manner, as they do have merit. Sutyarashi (talk) Sutyarashi (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused on this as well. If none of the other pages mention content that does not exist in this one why would it be added to this page? The Anglosphere =/= Sinosphere argument seems particularly baseless here, which is surprising given AnonMoos' long history, since the page already draws direct correlation between East Asian cultural sphere and Sinosphere multiple times both in the lead and the body, which would evoke WP:COMMONNAME as well as "East Asian cultural sphere" simply being a less accurate title: Vietnam, Singapore, Mongolia? Qiushufang (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. What is the logical follow through here? Why would none of the disambiguation pages not discussing x mean x would have to be added to this page if the name is changed? Isn't it the opposite where if none of the disambiguation pages mention x then x would not have to be merged or included in the same name page? Sinosphere already links to this page while being the more WP:COMMONNAME, so I fail to see how any of this is relevant if they are being treated as synonymous. I do agree with Orsos that the Anglosphere =/= Sinosphere angle is a bad faith argument. I've already mentioned that this article does not describe an East Asian cultural sphere but also that it does not have to be a 100% match to another similar term to be used. That is not how it works, otherwise why would Indosphere and Anglosphere both exist if they both mean different things or have different focuses in their articles? Qiushufang (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now? - Funny that I saw this discussion as I was just starting to research about to topic for my college paper. From what I've learned, the term Sinosphere was indeed an English term created by James Matisoff to describe the regions of the Chinese linguistic and cultural influence in Southeast Asia, in order to distinguish it from Indosphere (Another term he coined to define the Southeast Asia's areas of Indian influence).
Source: https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/joseph.1/Ling611/Lx611Matisoff1990.pdf (See the footnote 17 on page 113).
The term's original definition was later somehow largely corrupted and misused to commonly define the Asian region of Chinese influence, which I am currently writing about.
My concern is that simply replacing this page's title with Sinosphere may cause the confusions and misunderstanding since the word's original definition meant by the term's author was not quite identical to what is referred by the East Asian Cultural Sphere. UofCAsian (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page does not describe an "East Asian cultural sphere" but the Sinosphere so why would changing its name to Sinosphere cause confusion? It is not "East Asian" because Vietnam is included and the focus is on historical Chinese political and cultural influence. The two opposition statements seem to be intentionally avoiding this part of the argument. Qiushufang (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was seen as intentionally avoiding the topic since I was just simply sharing the concern from what I knew.
I am also not sure if the East Asian Cultural Sphere is the best way to describe the concept , but my two cents is that Sinosphere originally meant the Chinese sphere of influence within the Southeast Asia as coined by Matsoff, so the major overhaul of the article may be needed with much more emphasis on how the term started and evolved (ex. How did the term Sinosphere change from meaning the linguistic Chinese sphere within the Southeast to East Asia and Vietnam specifically?) rather than only focusing on what cultures each country shares with China as seen in the current article. (I may be able to contribute to this if the article's name ends up changing, but I have school works for now :/).
If you look at the Anglosphere article, for example, it discusses much more about the definition, history, uses, and debate regarding the term rather than just comparing the Anglosphere countries.
That's why I said "for now". If such changes can be made to the article, then my concern is addressed. But once again, please note that I'm just shrining my opinion and I'm leaving at that. UofCAsian (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are working on this topic for a paper, could you recommend some material to add to this page? Qiushufang (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I've just started, so all I have is the article I just shared. May be someday when I get done with courses. UofCAsian (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UofCAsian there is almost zero usage of current title in the academic sources. On the other hand, Sinosphere is widely used for describing cultural influence of historic Chinese dynasties over neighbouring regions. Given that Vietnam is not in East Asia but is still included in Sinosphere, the article should be renamed. Obviously some portions would be rewritten to reflect this. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per WP:COMMONNAME. Like the others argued, it really should had been just 'Sinosphere' from the start, and "East Asian cultural sphere" is misleading and inaccurate here as it's not for an article based primarily on the geography. Basis of the grouping is instead only meant for labelling what regions are deeply influenced by China (Sino) for many centuries. That's it. They're not grouped together because of the geography. If geography was the basis for the term, then you should not be also adding in Vietnam (which is geographically South-east Asian) yet omitting out Mongolia and all the other countries within south east Asia. But since we are only describing what regions are deeply influenced by a dominant China for many dynasties, then Chinese cultural sphere or in Latin; (sino)sphere is the most appropriate and makes the most sense as a title.TasmaniaBridge (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be a random IP address but changing this means a big overhaul on many wiki articles as well. Since Vietnam is Sinosphere but not "East Asian" geography, then we also have the tricky issue where some articles say "East Asian religion" but they mention only Chinese-influenced regions in East Asian geography, and often exclude Vietnam, when Vietnam should be included. Hence, there needs to be some compromise where Vietnam is included into those definitions such as "East Asian religion" (should be Sinospheric religions then) as they were all influenced by Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, with Vietnamese being arguably closer to Chinese culture (tonal, "monosyllabic" languages) then Japanese and Korean (non-tonal, multisyllabic languages). 203.158.59.250 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I think you are grossly misinterpreting my comment and overcomplicating things. I am not saying that anything that is "east - Asian" must now all be called sinospheric. That's so ridiculous. I am instead saying that for many dynasties especially the Tang Dynasty, China had left a lot of cultural impact that is somewhat unique to a specific region like using chopsticks, lunar calendar, Chinese scripts, Confucius philosophy among others.[3] And this deep spread-out influence still seen deeply today, is known as a "sinosphere" or "sinic world". And given that this article is about that significant topic then I am only supporting only for this article title to be changed to sinosphere. As sinosphere means pretty much that. A region that is heavily influenced by Chinese culture. Japan’s culture is substantially derived from Tang Dynasty China. Korea’s was strongly influenced by China’s art and religion. Same holds true for Southeast Asia, Vietnam in particular. However I am nowhere suggesting to also replace the word; "east Asian" with sino in every single Wikipedia article. Nobody is suggesting that and don't know why you think I had asked that. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that people often group it up as "China, Japan, Korea", when really it should be Vietnam and China, and Japan and Korea on the side. The impact of Mongolia has been too much which shifted the definition more north whilst Vietnam is often excluded due to its Southeast Asian geography. I'm saying that if this article is renamed Sinosphere, then every other article would have to change as well. Vietnam has been taking on Chinese influence since the Han dynasty and was ruled by several Chinese dynasty. Japan only borrowed elements, whilst countries like Korea and Vietnam were at times annexed by Chinese empires. This makes Vietnam having a much higher criteria then Japan for instance, which borrowed but was never conquered by historical China which happened to Vietnam and Korea. 203.158.59.250 (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories