Jump to content

Talk:Sinosphere

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Propose to use "Sinitic" instead of "East Asian" because of people (mis)using geography to exclude Vietnam from the Sinosphere

[edit]

As this article was recently moved from "East Asian cultural sphere" to "Sinosphere" I'd like to raise attention to an issue I've noticed across articles about this topic, namely that people keep removing Vietnam from articles related to shared cultural practices from across the Sinosphere, the motivations for this can include Vietnamese nationalists who dislike China (a similar breed exists in Korea who make the same arguments), to geographic absolutists saying "Vietnam is Southeast Asian" and "Vietnam doesn't have an East Asian character".

I've noticed an odd trend when working with these articles and that is that geography is misused to try to exclude Vietnam from any topics related to the Sinosphere. In this version of the article on Sinitic seals one can clearly see that the seal culture of Vietnam which is identical with that of China, Japan, and Korea is regarded as "less important" in Vietnam and Vietnamese history. In fact, for years the Philippines was placed above Vietnam and had detailed information about a completely unrelated seal culture while dismissing their usage in Vietnam. The way the article is currently written also suggests that when the French arrived these seals just disappeared and that Vietnam's current seal culture is somehow different from that in the People's Republic of China. None of which are true, currently the traditional seal is still used as a personal seal in Vietnam in exactly the same way as it is being used in Mainland China, likewise the claim "Government seals in the People's Republic of China today are usually circular in shape, and have a five-pointed star in the centre of the circle. The name of the governmental institution is arranged around the star in a semicircle – a form also adopted by some company chops." also fully applies to Vietnam, though government seals typically use the emblem of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while companies use their name, not too dissimilar from Chinese government seals. This doesn't just apply to this particular case, it also applies elsewhere as Vietnam is often excluded from "East Asian" topics because Vietnam is "Not East Asian". This often leads to many articles about topics which are identical in Vietnamese culture to those found in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean cultures to be excluded, see examples, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Copying from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lachy70&oldid=1157388933

== "Vietnam is not East Asian" ==

I don't know who else to consult, I saw you revert some of their POV edits in 2022 but I'm not sure who else actually cares about this. I noticed that a lot of articles about the Sinosphere seem to exclude Vietnam but I didn't know why this was or why information of Vietnam always seemed to be missing from these articles. I thought that this was the co-ordinated effort of lots of Sinophobic / Missinitic (however you call "anti-Chinese") Vietnamese nationalists but looking over the editing history of some of these articles I can see that it's often a single person that is to blame:

At this point it becomes clear to me that they envision a geographical East Asian cultural sphere from which Vietnam must be excluded.

Whatever their motivations for doing so, this is clearly pushing a POV, a POV which very much tries to erase Vietnam from the Sinosphere purely because it is not geographically in "East Asia". I am not sure how active you are with these articles, but it seems like this person went out of their way to remove content about Vietnam even when the article wasn't explicitly about East Asia. This isn't unique to the English-language Wikipedia either, I often see this at the Mandarin-language Wikipedia too, but I didn't realise that this was all basically done by one person here. --Donald Trung (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, his reasoning for removal of content do not justify his actions. He is clearly pushing a POV. Most of his removals claim that Vietnamese is irreverent to Sinosphere even though many sources have stated that Vietnam has tremendous Chinese cultural influence.
I am not particular active on some of these articles, but I did try to revert most of his changes when applicable. Lachy70 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Their argument is that historical Chinese influence in Vietnam is "irrelevant" because of geography, but they themselves define this geography which is clearly vandalism, unfortunately I am not allowed to report vandalism so I often see vandals on my watchlist that I can't do anything about.
Anyhow, I saw the amazing articles you wrote about those books about Vietnamese culture, I am looking forward to see more of your creations in the future. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

END QUOTE.

Copied the entire thing for context.

Academics have also adopted another approach, rather than describing "Chinese" influence they will use "Sinitic" influence (this article uses "Sinic" but I haven't personally encountered that claim yet). From an entitled “Academic Dependency Theory and the Politics of Agency in Area Studies: The Case of Anglophone Vietnamese Studies from the 1960s to the 2010s,” the article was written by Chang Yufen of National Taipei University and it looks at English-language scholarship on premodern Vietnamese history from the perspective of academic dependency theory.

This paper uses terms like "Literary Sinitic" to refer to "Literary Chinese" due to the perception of using "Chinese" in this regard and it's to differentiate historical Chinese influence from modern China. Judging from the above, would it be wise to replace the geographically misleading term "East Asian" to refer to the Sinosphere with "Sinitic"? --Donald Trung (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add to the above that they are not the only user doing that, user "Laska666" (a Champa nationalist) wrote a large number of articles and content expansions that tried to minimise Chinese influence in Vietnam and deliberately tried to remove references to Chinese influence in Vietnam. The motivations of these people are very wide and diverse, but the result is the same, Vietnam is seen as "the other". Another great example is this rant on this very talk page. The talking points from this diatribe are also found in Korean nationalist historiography, particularly North Korean historiography.
TL;DR: I am proposing to change "East Asian" to "Sinitic" in related articles because people keep misusing "East Asian" to exclude Vietnam, even if "East Asia and Vietnam" was being used. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am for this change although it will likely raise concerns similar to the ones here over the name change. To a laymen's eyes, the difference between Sinitic, Sinosphere or any of the other words with the Sin- prefix may be moot. I am sure they are aware of what was meant in the first place when they erased Vietnam from the "East Asian+" category and will do the same even more so with the Sinitic label. Qiushufang (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like little momentum arose from this proposal. I agree with it, and I'll be trying to get momentum for change on other pages. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article continues to deteriorate

[edit]

The concept of the Sinosphere is based on the fact that major national cultures surrounding China were heavily influenced by Chinese models, particularly in fields like political organisation, language (esp written language and script), religion, architecture, etc. The Sinosphere doesn't refer to "national entities", which is especially problematic in the case of China, which covers cultures that are only part of the Sinosphere by virtue of being under Chinese control, e.g., Tibet or Xinjiang. Even though Tibet is part of modern-day China and has unquestionably been influenced by China throughout its history, it can't meaningfully be regarded as part of the Sinosphere as it doesn't share traditional concepts such as political organisation, written language, religion, or architecture. Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, on the other hand, adopted certain aspects of Chinese civilisation wholesale -- Chinese writing, Chinese vocabulary, Chinese philosophy, Chinese Buddhism, Chinese architecture, traditional political culture (but not necessarily modern political culture), and Chinese literature. That is not to deny the uniqueness of the Vietnamese experience, but the historical influence of China is very clear in modern Vietnam, even though Vietnam no longer uses Chinese characters. Mongolia, on the other hand, is not part of the Sinosphere, even though it has obviously been influenced by China (e.g., in the use of the Chinese zodiac). Mongolia did not adopt Chinese characters or literary Chinese. It did not adopt Chinese Buddhism or Chinese systems of political organisation.

So let's keep it cultural and stop trying to "claim" cultures or countries for China. That's not what the concept is about.

(Later edit: the Language log article at https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4306 discusses the initial use of the term Sinosphere by Matisoff, which had nothing to do with the use of hanzi, and the turn that the article took when "Sinosphere" was equated to "漢字文化圏".

Bathrobe (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're starting out with an assumption that this is somehow inherently a game of possession and territorial stakes, which is nonsense. It's somewhat obtuse to draw that thick a line between "national entities" and "civilizations" or "cultures", they are concepts which influence each other.
What, specifically, do you take umbrage with in the article? It hardly mentions Tibet or Xinjiang at all, would you prefer it mention them not at all? Remsense留 20:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I'm critical of the tendency to see this as inherently a game of possession. Why are you objecting? The Sinosphere is partly a cultural, partly a political concept. But the reason the article (and the map) is such a mess is that some people are pushing, while others object to, the concept for nationalistic reasons.
Bathrobe (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we really disagree on much, sorry if I was overly suspicious coming out of the gate—the POV pushing you describe mutuall breeds suspicion, I suppose. Regarding the map specifically: I'm curious if you have any specific ideas as to what to do with it? I can edit SVG and can whip up anything that anyone requests. Remsense留 21:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To explain further:
I'm aware that the concept of the Sinosphere is easy on the surface but difficult to resolve if you try to define or describe it further. It's not as straightforward, objective, or factual as it appears. Membership is conventionally confined to advanced literate cultures in powerful, modern, independent polities, like Japan, Korea, China, and Vietnam. It doesn't usually include the ethnicities of Southwest China that use Chinese characters, such as Old Zhuang script / Sawndip, because the Zhuang aren't a powerful, independent, modern polity; they are simply "a part of China", a small dependent ethnicity. Not worth considering on the same plane.
I suspect that the concept is, in part, a child of Asian nationalism reacting to Western colonialism. Why were some literate Japanese so keen to declare their membership of a shared cultural zone, even as the general trend in Japan from Meiji on was to wholeheartedly embrace Western technology and culture? Were they pushing back against the "European cultural zone" that had attained such global preeminence, by putting forward an equally valid "East Asian" cultural sphere comprising the dominant cultures of East Asia? Not to mention the infamous East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. (I don't have sources to back this up. I'm not sure there is much postmodern research that attempts to deconstruct the concept. But any dispassionate appraisal of the concept of the Sinosphere surely has to take this into account).
To turn to the map: I think it's difficult. You could create a map showing traditional "Sinosphere" territories (say, the 18 provinces of China, Japan excluding most of Hokkaido (only in the "Sinosphere" since it was settled by Japanese settlers in the 19th century), most of Vietnam (but maybe excluding the south?, which was only gradually conquered). But any map of this kind would involve some kind of "original research", which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Bathrobe (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a misunderstanding on what the terminology used by the Japanese is. There were referring to the sphere of Sinic culture based on literary art - think about the etymological origins of the Chinese word for culture. It is similar to the idea of Islamic sphere or Islamic world. That does not mean that a country that has been influenced by Sinic culture is exclusively part of the Sinosphere, or that it has been dominated by Sinic culture. WhatIsBusan (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the premise of the complaint here. Tibet and Xinjiang are barely mentioned if at all. Qiushufang (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the oversimplifying map, which identifies all of China as belonging to the Sinosphere. This is inaccurate since the territory of modern China does not uniformly belong to the traditional Sinosphere.
I am equally talking about those pushing the viewpoint that Vietnam doesn't belong to the Sinosphere. (One comment even mentions Champa.) There is plenty of scholarship to show that the dominant culture of modern Vietnam has been heavily influenced by China (e.g., Vietnam and the Chinese Model by Alexander Woodside).
Bathrobe (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also responding to casual attempts by some editors to include Mongolia within the Sinosphere. I don't have access to the references given for these edits, but snippets in Google books taken from the pages cited don't seem to lend support to the idea that Mongolia can be considered part of a cultural "Sinosphere" in the sense that the entry is discussing. There is no denying the fact that Mongolia has historically been strongly tied to East Asia, that there has been Chinese cultural influence on the Mongols, and even that some important items of Mongolian culture, such as the Secret History of the Mongols, were written using Chinese characters for their phonetic value, but this is different from the far-reaching adoption of Chinese culture in all its aspects by Korea, Japan, and Vietnam.
Such edits seem designed to expand the Sinosphere to its largest possible extent, rather than providing a meaningful characterisation of the Sinosphere. Bathrobe (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about removing the map and replacing it with one of the text/character comparisons included in the body? That removes the potential anachronisms that might come out of any modern map, and provides an instant and clear example of the historical/cultural relationships. CMD (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that. Qiushufang (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the infobox map is fine. It shows the modern countries where the predominant culture is descended from a sinospheric influence, not that everybody within it practices the dominant culture. If we get into historical geographical details, then wouldn't Xinjiang/Central Asia/Mongolia also be defined as once sinospheric areas due to the Liao dynasty and Western Liao? They used Chinese influenced characters. To me the map is just a simplification of what modern countries' dominant cultures are considered part of the sinosphere. Qiushufang (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that in Vietnam and Japan the predominant culture is not Sinic. In fact there are very few Sinic influences in modern-day Japan. WhatIsBusan (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sinosphere does not describe just modern culture, so the point is moot. Someone already explained that above. And the point is arguably not true either. Around 60% of Japanese vocabulary in dictionaries is derived from Chinese called Sino-Japanese vocabulary. This is not to mention architecture, religion, dress, technology, and art, all of which have heavy Chinese influences.Qiushufang (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that architecture, religion, dress, technology and art in Japan have multiple sources and much (if not most) of it does not derive from China. For example there is very little influence of Confucianism in modern day Japanese society, and utterly no influence of Taoism. The only major hegemonic influence of China on Japan has been literary.
And this also gets into to whom many of these influences should be attributed to considering Japan has maintained close contact with both South East Asia and South Asia for the past several centuries. For example should cultural attributes that originated in China but arrived through Korea be attributed to the Sinosphere or the Hangusphere?
The original meaning of the term that is used Japanese is more close to the etymological meaning of the term "culture" in Chinese writing which refers to writing (文) more emphatically that the broader concept used in the West. It's literally referring to the idea of there being arts that can be groups together for the purpose of study in a single field (for example you can group a poem under poetry or sinic texts). WhatIsBusan (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are operating based on your own definition of what the "Sinosphere" is, not the one we are using or the one the article is about. No one is going to be able to adequately converse with you until you start making points based on what the article actually says. Remsense留 11:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is your definition of Sinosphere though?
As I said the original meaning of the term that is used Japanese is more close to the etymological meaning of the term "culture" in Chinese writing which refers to writing (文) more emphatically that the broader concept used in the West. It's literally referring to the idea of there being arts that can be groups together for the purpose of study in a single field (for example you can group a poem under poetry or sinic texts). WhatIsBusan (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one attested by all the sources under the article that understand 'culture' in a particular, perhaps problematic sense. I don't get to decide what 'Sinosphere' has meant to English speakers—if it means something distinct in another language, that could be worth writing in a section in the article about. Remsense留 11:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pages using "East Asia" in place of the Sinosphere

[edit]

I opened a move discussion on Talk:Seal (East Asia)#Requested move 3 July 2024 -> "Seals in the Sinosphere". Invite others to participate in it.

This page isn't alone though; there's more pages that use "East Asia" when they should be using "Sinosphere" or some similar term. For example, East Asian age reckoning; Vietnam use(s/d) the age reckoning, so "East Asia" isn't strictly correct. I'll be keeping an eye out for more pages like this.

Depending on how the seal move discussion goes, I'll consider opening move discussions on other pages that similarly leave out Vietnam. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult: while the broadest audience may or may not include or exclude Vietnam when they hear "East Asia", "Sinosphere" is essentially a technical term, so I pause when adopting it systematically in all articles, even if it is more accurate. As one may imagine, there's considerable reservations about the term in some scholarship also, but in my personal opinion it is very difficult to have a term that both accurately identifies the origin and largest "constituent" of a cultural region, while adequately communicating the cosmopolitan and multifaceted nature of said cultural region: I think "Sinosphere" is about the best we've done so far, as "sino-" correctly identifies the particular place of China but omits much of the lexical assumption one might include when hearing "Chinese" as such (e.g. specific ethnic, national, or linguistic character)
That is to say, replacing "East Asia" with "Sinosphere" in titles essentially prioritizes precision over recognizability and naturalness per the naming convention criteria: I'm fine with that, but we should be clear that that's our priority here. Remsense诉 16:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with your take and well articulated, thanks. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian culture

[edit]

@Remsense, both Culture of East Asia and East Asian cultural sphere redirect to this page, but this page is only narrowly focused on Chinese cultural elements that are found throughout East Asia, rather than giving a proper understanding of all relevant cultural elements (such as Western-origin elements). GreekApple123 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right—so what is being disambiguated? If I typed in those things and got here, there's no confusion at any point. If anything, you'd want to retarget the redirect. Remsense ‥ 论 19:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've gone ahead and retargeted the redirects. Thanks GreekApple123 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinosphere&oldid=1252744561"